ensure that prechecks() actually fails if an exact check input is provided (for a CI check) and that check does not exist in the graphql response for passed checks on the pull request

Author: GrantBirki

__tests__/functions/prechecks.test.js

@@ -397,6 +397,95 @@ test('runs prechecks and finds that the IssueOps command is valid for a branch d
   )
 })
 
+test('runs prechecks and finds that the IssueOps command is valid for a branch deployment with a few explictly requested checks and a few ignored checks but one CI check is missing', async () => {
+  octokit.graphql = jest.fn().mockReturnValue({
+    repository: {
+      pullRequest: {
+        reviewDecision: 'APPROVED',
+        mergeStateStatus: 'CLEAN',
+        reviews: {
+          totalCount: 1
+        },
+        commits: {
+          nodes: [
+            {
+              commit: {
+                oid: 'abc123',
+                checkSuites: {
+                  totalCount: 5
+                },
+                statusCheckRollup: {
+                  state: 'FAILURE',
+                  contexts: {
+                    nodes: [
+                      {
+                        isRequired: true,
+                        conclusion: 'SUCCESS',
+                        name: 'test'
+                      },
+                      {
+                        isRequired: false,
+                        conclusion: 'SUCCESS',
+                        name: 'acceptance-test'
+                      },
+                      {
+                        isRequired: true,
+                        conclusion: 'SKIPPED',
+                        name: 'lint'
+                      },
+                      {
+                        isRequired: false,
+                        conclusion: 'FAILURE',
+                        name: 'build'
+                      },
+                      {
+                        isRequired: true,
+                        conclusion: 'FAILURE',
+                        name: 'markdown-lint'
+                      }
+                    ]
+                  }
+                }
+              }
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  })
+
+  data.inputs.checks = ['test', 'acceptance-test', 'quality-control', 'lint']
+  data.inputs.ignored_checks = ['lint']
+
+  expect(await prechecks(context, octokit, data)).toStrictEqual({
+    message:
+      'The `checks` input option requires that all of the following checks are passing: `test,acceptance-test,quality-control,lint`. However, the following checks are missing: `quality-control`',
+    status: false
+  })
+
+  expect(warningMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    `the ${COLORS.info}checks${COLORS.reset} input option requires that all of the following checks are passing: ${COLORS.highlight}${data.inputs.checks.join(', ')}${COLORS.reset} - however, the following checks are missing: ${COLORS.highlight}quality-control${COLORS.reset}`
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - explicitly including ci check: test'
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - explicitly including ci check: acceptance-test'
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - explicitly including ci check: lint'
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - markdown-lint is not in the explicit list of checks to include (test,acceptance-test,lint)'
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - ignoring ci check: markdown-lint'
+  )
+  expect(debugMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    'filterChecks() - ignoring ci check: lint'
+  )
+})
+
 test('runs prechecks and finds that the IssueOps command is valid for a branch deployment but checks and ignore checks cancel eachother out', async () => {
   octokit.graphql = jest.fn().mockReturnValue({
     repository: {

dist/index.js

@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ export async function prechecks(context, octokit, data) {
 
   // Grab the statusCheckRollup state from the GraphQL result
   var commitStatus
+  var filterChecksResults
   try {
     // Check to see if skipCi is set for the environment being used
     if (skipCi) {
@@ -272,13 +273,14 @@ export async function prechecks(context, octokit, data) {
 
       // If only the required checks need to pass
     } else if (checks === 'required') {
-      commitStatus = filterChecks(
+      filterChecksResults = filterChecks(
         checks,
         result.repository.pullRequest.commits.nodes[0].commit.statusCheckRollup
           .contexts.nodes,
         ignoredChecks,
         true
       )
+      commitStatus = filterChecksResults.status
 
       // If there are CI checked defined, we need to check for the 'state' of the latest commit
     } else if (checks === 'all') {
@@ -290,25 +292,27 @@ export async function prechecks(context, octokit, data) {
 
         // if there are ignored checks, we need to filter out the ignored checks from the graphql result
       } else {
-        commitStatus = filterChecks(
+        filterChecksResults = filterChecks(
           checks,
           result.repository.pullRequest.commits.nodes[0].commit
             .statusCheckRollup.contexts.nodes,
           ignoredChecks,
           false
         )
+        commitStatus = filterChecksResults.status
       }
 
       // if we make it here, checks is not a string (e.g. 'all' or 'required') but it is actually an array of the exact checks...
       // that a user wants to pass in order for the deployment to proceed
     } else {
-      commitStatus = filterChecks(
+      filterChecksResults = filterChecks(
         checks,
         result.repository.pullRequest.commits.nodes[0].commit.statusCheckRollup
           .contexts.nodes,
         ignoredChecks,
         false
       )
+      commitStatus = filterChecksResults.status
     }
   } catch (e) {
     core.debug(
@@ -653,6 +657,12 @@ export async function prechecks(context, octokit, data) {
     message = `### ⚠️ Cannot proceed with deployment\n\n- reviewDecision: \`${reviewDecision}\`\n- commitStatus: \`${commitStatus}\`\n\n> CI checks must be passing in order to continue`
     return {message: message, status: false}
 
+    // Regardless of the reviewDecision or noop, if the commitStatus is 'MISSING' this means that a user has explicitly requested a CI check to be passing with the `checks: <check1>,<check2>,<etc>` input option, but the check could not be found in the GraphQL result
+    // In this case, we should alert the user that the check could not be found and exit
+  } else if (commitStatus === 'MISSING') {
+    message = `### ⚠️ Cannot proceed with deployment\n\n- reviewDecision: \`${reviewDecision}\`\n- commitStatus: \`${commitStatus}\`\n\n> CI checks must be passing in order to continue`
+    return {message: filterChecksResults.message, status: false}
+
     // If CI is passing but the PR is missing an approval, let the user know
   } else if (
     (reviewDecision === 'REVIEW_REQUIRED' ||
@@ -741,19 +751,41 @@ export async function prechecks(context, octokit, data) {
 // :param checkResults: An array of check results (objects) from the graphql query
 // :param ignoredChecks: An array of check names to ignore
 // :param required: A boolean to determine if a check being a required check should be considered
-// :returns: A string representing the combined status of the remaining checks (e.g. 'SUCCESS' or 'FAILURE')
+// :returns: An object containing a message (if a failure occurs), and a string representing the status of the checks
+// example: {message: '...', status: 'SUCCESS'}
+// The status will be one of the following: 'SUCCESS', 'FAILURE', 'MISSING'
 function filterChecks(checks, checkResults, ignoredChecks, required) {
   const healthyCheckStatuses = ['SUCCESS', 'SKIPPED', 'NEUTRAL']
 
   core.debug(`filterChecks() - checks: ${checks}`)
   core.debug(`filterChecks() - ignoredChecks: ${ignoredChecks}`)
   core.debug(`filterChecks() - required: ${required}`)
 
+  // If checks is an array (meaning it isn't just `required` or `all`) and it contains items
+  const checksProvided = Array.isArray(checks) && checks.length > 0
+
+  // If a set of values is provided for the `checks` input option, ensure all of them exist in checkResults
+  // Example: if `checks` is set to `['test', 'lint', 'build']`, ensure that all of those checks exist in checkResults
+  if (checksProvided) {
+    const missingChecks = checks.filter(
+      ch => !checkResults.some(cr => cr.name === ch)
+    )
+    if (missingChecks.length > 0) {
+      core.warning(
+        `the ${COLORS.info}checks${COLORS.reset} input option requires that all of the following checks are passing: ${COLORS.highlight}${checks.join(', ')}${COLORS.reset} - however, the following checks are missing: ${COLORS.highlight}${missingChecks.join(', ')}${COLORS.reset}`
+      )
+
+      return {
+        message: `The \`checks\` input option requires that all of the following checks are passing: \`${checks.join(',')}\`. However, the following checks are missing: \`${missingChecks.join(',')}\``,
+        status: 'MISSING'
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
   // Filter the checkResults based on user input (checks), ignoring checks, and required flag
   const filteredChecks = checkResults
     .filter(check => {
-      // If checks is an array (meaning it isn't just `required` or `all`) and it contains items, filter checks based on it
-      if (Array.isArray(checks) && checks.length > 0) {
+      if (checksProvided) {
         // check if the `checks` input option explicitly includes the name of the check that was found
         const isIncluded = checks.includes(check.name)
 
@@ -793,12 +825,16 @@ function filterChecks(checks, checkResults, ignoredChecks, required) {
 
   // If no checks remain after filtering, default to SUCCESS
   if (filteredChecks.length === 0) {
-    core.debug(
+    const message =
       'filterChecks() - after filtering, no checks remain - this will result in a SUCCESS state as it is treated as if no checks are defined'
-    )
-    return 'SUCCESS'
+    core.debug(message)
+    return {message: message, status: 'SUCCESS'}
   }
 
-  // Return SUCCESS if all checks are healthy, otherwise FAILURE
-  return allHealthy ? 'SUCCESS' : 'FAILURE'
+  return {
+    message: allHealthy
+      ? 'all checks passed'
+      : 'one or more checks did not pass',
+    status: allHealthy ? 'SUCCESS' : 'FAILURE'
+  }
 }