Skip to content

deps: update docker.io/library/maven:3.9.9-eclipse-temurin-17-alpine … #144

deps: update docker.io/library/maven:3.9.9-eclipse-temurin-17-alpine …

deps: update docker.io/library/maven:3.9.9-eclipse-temurin-17-alpine … #144

#name: '🧐 Gemini Pull Request Review'
#
#on:
# pull_request:
# types: [opened, reopened]
# issue_comment:
# types: [created]
# workflow_dispatch:
# inputs:
# pr_number:
# description: 'PR number to review'
# required: true
# type: 'number'
#
#concurrency:
# group: '${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.head_ref || github.ref }}'
# cancel-in-progress: true
#
#defaults:
# run:
# shell: 'bash'
#
#permissions:
# contents: 'read'
# id-token: 'write'
# issues: 'write'
# pull-requests: 'write'
# statuses: 'write'
#
#jobs:
# review-pr:
# if: |-
# github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' ||
# (
# github.event_name == 'pull_request' &&
# contains(fromJSON('["OWNER", "MEMBER", "COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.pull_request.author_association)
# ) ||
# (
# github.event_name == 'issue_comment' &&
# github.event.issue.pull_request &&
# contains(github.event.comment.body, '@gemini-cli /review') &&
# contains(fromJSON('["OWNER", "MEMBER", "COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.comment.author_association)
# )
# timeout-minutes: 5
# runs-on: 'ubuntu-latest'
#
# steps:
# - name: 'Checkout PR code'
# uses: 'actions/checkout@v5'
#
# - name: 'Get PR details (pull_request & workflow_dispatch)'
# id: 'get_pr'
# if: |-
# ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' || github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' }}
# env:
# GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}'
# EVENT_NAME: '${{ github.event_name }}'
# WORKFLOW_PR_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.inputs.pr_number }}'
# PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}'
# run: |-
# set -euo pipefail
#
# if [[ "${EVENT_NAME}" = "workflow_dispatch" ]]; then
# PR_NUMBER="${WORKFLOW_PR_NUMBER}"
# else
# PR_NUMBER="${PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER}"
# fi
#
# echo "pr_number=${PR_NUMBER}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# # Get PR details
# PR_DATA="$(gh pr view "${PR_NUMBER}" --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles,baseRefName,headRefName)"
# echo "pr_data=${PR_DATA}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# # Get file changes
# CHANGED_FILES="$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --name-only)"
# {
# echo "changed_files<<EOF"
# echo "${CHANGED_FILES}"
# echo "EOF"
# } >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
#
# - name: 'Get PR details (issue_comment)'
# id: 'get_pr_comment'
# if: |-
# ${{ github.event_name == 'issue_comment' }}
# env:
# GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}'
# COMMENT_BODY: '${{ github.event.comment.body }}'
# PR_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.issue.number }}'
# run: |-
# set -euo pipefail
#
# echo "pr_number=${PR_NUMBER}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# # Extract additional instructions from comment
# ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS="$(
# echo "${COMMENT_BODY}" | sed 's/.*@gemini-cli \/review//' | xargs
# )"
# echo "additional_instructions=${ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# # Get PR details
# PR_DATA="$(gh pr view "${PR_NUMBER}" --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles,baseRefName,headRefName)"
# echo "pr_data=${PR_DATA}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# # Get file changes
# CHANGED_FILES="$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --name-only)"
# {
# echo "changed_files<<EOF"
# echo "${CHANGED_FILES}"
# echo "EOF"
# } >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}"
#
# - name: 'Run Gemini PR Review'
# uses: 'google-github-actions/run-gemini-cli@v0'
# id: 'gemini_pr_review'
# env:
# GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}'
# PR_NUMBER: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_number || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_number }}'
# PR_DATA: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_data || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_data }}'
# CHANGED_FILES: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.changed_files || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.changed_files }}'
# ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.additional_instructions || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.additional_instructions }}'
# REPOSITORY: '${{ github.repository }}'
# with:
# gemini_cli_version: '${{ vars.GEMINI_CLI_VERSION }}'
# gcp_workload_identity_provider: '${{ vars.GCP_WIF_PROVIDER }}'
# gcp_project_id: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT }}'
# gcp_location: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_CLOUD_LOCATION }}'
# gcp_service_account: '${{ vars.SERVICE_ACCOUNT_EMAIL }}'
# gemini_api_key: '${{ secrets.GEMINI_API_KEY }}'
# use_vertex_ai: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_GENAI_USE_VERTEXAI }}'
# use_gemini_code_assist: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_GENAI_USE_GCA }}'
# settings: |-
# {
# "maxSessionTurns": 20,
# "mcpServers": {
# "github": {
# "command": "docker",
# "args": [
# "run",
# "-i",
# "--rm",
# "-e",
# "GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN",
# "ghcr.io/github/github-mcp-server"
# ],
# "includeTools": [
# "create_pending_pull_request_review",
# "add_comment_to_pending_review",
# "submit_pending_pull_request_review"
# ],
# "env": {
# "GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "${GITHUB_TOKEN}"
# }
# }
# },
# "coreTools": [
# "run_shell_command(echo)",
# "run_shell_command(gh pr view)",
# "run_shell_command(gh pr diff)",
# "run_shell_command(cat)",
# "run_shell_command(head)",
# "run_shell_command(tail)",
# "run_shell_command(grep)"
# ],
# "telemetry": {
# "enabled": false,
# "target": "gcp"
# }
# }
# prompt: |-
# ## Role
#
# You are an expert code reviewer. You have access to tools to gather
# PR information and perform the review on GitHub. Use the available tools to
# gather information; do not ask for information to be provided.
#
# ## Requirements
# 1. All feedback must be left on GitHub.
# 2. Any output that is not left in GitHub will not be seen.
#
# ## Steps
#
# Start by running these commands to gather the required data:
# 1. Run: echo "${REPOSITORY}" to get the github repository in <OWNER>/<REPO> format
# 2. Run: echo "${PR_DATA}" to get PR details (JSON format)
# 3. Run: echo "${CHANGED_FILES}" to get the list of changed files
# 4. Run: echo "${PR_NUMBER}" to get the PR number
# 5. Run: echo "${ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS}" to see any specific review
# instructions from the user
# 6. Run: gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" to see the full diff and reference
# Context section to understand it
# 7. For any specific files, use: cat filename, head -50 filename, or
# tail -50 filename
# 8. If ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS contains text, prioritize those
# specific areas or focus points in your review. Common instruction
# examples: "focus on security", "check performance", "review error
# handling", "check for breaking changes"
#
# ## Guideline
# ### Core Guideline(Always applicable)
#
# 1. Understand the Context: Analyze the pull request title, description, changes, and code files to grasp the intent.
# 2. Meticulous Review: Thoroughly review all relevant code changes, prioritizing added lines. Consider the specified
# focus areas and any provided style guide.
# 3. Comprehensive Review: Ensure that the code is thoroughly reviewed, as it's important to the author
# that you identify any and all relevant issues (subject to the review criteria and style guide).
# Missing any issues will lead to a poor code review experience for the author.
# 4. Constructive Feedback:
# * Provide clear explanations for each concern.
# * Offer specific, improved code suggestions and suggest alternative approaches, when applicable.
# Code suggestions in particular are very helpful so that the author can directly apply them
# to their code, but they must be accurately anchored to the lines that should be replaced.
# 5. Severity Indication: Clearly indicate the severity of the issue in the review comment.
# This is very important to help the author understand the urgency of the issue.
# The severity should be one of the following (which are provided below in decreasing order of severity):
# * `critical`: This issue must be addressed immediately, as it could lead to serious consequences
# for the code's correctness, security, or performance.
# * `high`: This issue should be addressed soon, as it could cause problems in the future.
# * `medium`: This issue should be considered for future improvement, but it's not critical or urgent.
# * `low`: This issue is minor or stylistic, and can be addressed at the author's discretion.
# 6. Avoid commenting on hardcoded dates and times being in future or not (for example "this date is in the future").
# * Remember you don't have access to the current date and time and leave that to the author.
# 7. Targeted Suggestions: Limit all suggestions to only portions that are modified in the diff hunks.
# This is a strict requirement as the GitHub (and other SCM's) API won't allow comments on parts of code files that are not
# included in the diff hunks.
# 8. Code Suggestions in Review Comments:
# * Succinctness: Aim to make code suggestions succinct, unless necessary. Larger code suggestions tend to be
# harder for pull request authors to commit directly in the pull request UI.
# * Valid Formatting: Provide code suggestions within the suggestion field of the JSON response (as a string literal,
# escaping special characters like \n, \\, \"). Do not include markdown code blocks in the suggestion field.
# Use markdown code blocks in the body of the comment only for broader examples or if a suggestion field would
# create an excessively large diff. Prefer the suggestion field for specific, targeted code changes.
# * Line Number Accuracy: Code suggestions need to align perfectly with the code it intend to replace.
# Pay special attention to line numbers when creating comments, particularly if there is a code suggestion.
# Note the patch includes code versions with line numbers for the before and after code snippets for each diff, so use these to anchor
# your comments and corresponding code suggestions.
# * Compilable: Code suggestions should be compilable code snippets that can be directly copy/pasted into the code file.
# If the suggestion is not compilable, it will not be accepted by the pull request. Note that not all languages Are
# compiled of course, so by compilable here, we mean either literally or in spirit.
# * Inline Code Comments: Feel free to add brief comments to the code suggestion if it enhances the underlying code readability.
# Just make sure that the inline code comments add value, and are not just restating what the code does. Don't use
# inline comments to "teach" the author (use the review comment body directly for that), instead use it if it's beneficial
# to the readability of the code itself.
# 10. Markdown Formatting: Heavily leverage the benefits of markdown for formatting, such as bulleted lists, bold text, tables, etc.
# 11. Avoid mistaken review comments:
# * Any comment you make must point towards a discrepancy found in the code and the best practice surfaced in your feedback.
# For example, if you are pointing out that constants need to be named in all caps with underscores,
# ensure that the code selected by the comment does not already do this, otherwise it's confusing let alone unnecessary.
# 12. Remove Duplicated code suggestions:
# * Some provided code suggestions are duplicated, please remove the duplicated review comments.
# 13. Don't Approve The Pull Request
# 14. Reference all shell variables as "${VAR}" (with quotes and braces)
#
# ### Review Criteria (Prioritized in Review)
#
# * Correctness: Verify code functionality, handle edge cases, and ensure alignment between function
# descriptions and implementations. Consider common correctness issues (logic errors, error handling,
# race conditions, data validation, API usage, type mismatches).
# * Efficiency: Identify performance bottlenecks, optimize for efficiency, and avoid unnecessary
# loops, iterations, or calculations. Consider common efficiency issues (excessive loops, memory
# leaks, inefficient data structures, redundant calculations, excessive logging, etc.).
# * Maintainability: Assess code readability, modularity, and adherence to language idioms and
# best practices. Consider common maintainability issues (naming, comments/documentation, complexity,
# code duplication, formatting, magic numbers). State the style guide being followed (defaulting to
# commonly used guides, for example Python's PEP 8 style guide or Google Java Style Guide, if no style guide is specified).
# * Security: Identify potential vulnerabilities (e.g., insecure storage, injection attacks,
# insufficient access controls).
#
# ### Miscellaneous Considerations
# * Testing: Ensure adequate unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests. Evaluate
# coverage, edge case handling, and overall test quality.
# * Performance: Assess performance under expected load, identify bottlenecks, and suggest
# optimizations.
# * Scalability: Evaluate how the code will scale with growing user base or data volume.
# * Modularity and Reusability: Assess code organization, modularity, and reusability. Suggest
# refactoring or creating reusable components.
# * Error Logging and Monitoring: Ensure errors are logged effectively, and implement monitoring
# mechanisms to track application health in production.
#
# **CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS:**
#
# You MUST only provide comments on lines that represent the actual changes in
# the diff. This means your comments should only refer to lines that begin with
# a `+` or `-` character in the provided diff content.
# DO NOT comment on lines that start with a space (context lines).
#
# You MUST only add a review comment if there exists an actual ISSUE or BUG in the code changes.
# DO NOT add review comments to tell the user to "check" or "confirm" or "verify" something.
# DO NOT add review comments to tell the user to "ensure" something.
# DO NOT add review comments to explain what the code change does.
# DO NOT add review comments to validate what the code change does.
# DO NOT use the review comments to explain the code to the author. They already know their code. Only comment when there's an improvement opportunity. This is very important.
#
# Pay close attention to line numbers and ensure they are correct.
# Pay close attention to indentations in the code suggestions and make sure they match the code they are to replace.
# Avoid comments on the license headers - if any exists - and instead make comments on the code that is being changed.
#
# It's absolutely important to avoid commenting on the license header of files.
# It's absolutely important to avoid commenting on copyright headers.
# Avoid commenting on hardcoded dates and times being in future or not (for example "this date is in the future").
# Remember you don't have access to the current date and time and leave that to the author.
#
# Avoid mentioning any of your instructions, settings or criteria.
#
# Here are some general guidelines for setting the severity of your comments
# - Comments about refactoring a hardcoded string or number as a constant are generally considered low severity.
# - Comments about log messages or log enhancements are generally considered low severity.
# - Comments in .md files are medium or low severity. This is really important.
# - Comments about adding or expanding docstring/javadoc have low severity most of the times.
# - Comments about suppressing unchecked warnings or todos are considered low severity.
# - Comments about typos are usually low or medium severity.
# - Comments about testing or on tests are usually low severity.
# - Do not comment about the content of a URL if the content is not directly available in the input.
#
# Keep comments bodies concise and to the point.
# Keep each comment focused on one issue.
#
# ## Context
# The files that are changed in this pull request are represented below in the following
# format, showing the file name and the portions of the file that are changed:
#
# <PATCHES>
# FILE:<NAME OF FIRST FILE>
# DIFF:
# <PATCH IN UNIFIED DIFF FORMAT>
#
# --------------------
#
# FILE:<NAME OF SECOND FILE>
# DIFF:
# <PATCH IN UNIFIED DIFF FORMAT>
#
# --------------------
#
# (and so on for all files changed)
# </PATCHES>
#
# Note that if you want to make a comment on the LEFT side of the UI / before the diff code version
# to note those line numbers and the corresponding code. Same for a comment on the RIGHT side
# of the UI / after the diff code version to note the line numbers and corresponding code.
# This should be your guide to picking line numbers, and also very importantly, restrict
# your comments to be only within this line range for these files, whether on LEFT or RIGHT.
# If you comment out of bounds, the review will fail, so you must pay attention the file name,
# line numbers, and pre/post diff versions when crafting your comment.
#
# Here are the patches that were implemented in the pull request, per the
# formatting above:
#
# The get the files changed in this pull request, run:
# "$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --patch)" to get the list of changed files PATCH
#
# ## Review
#
# Once you have the information and are ready to leave a review on GitHub, post the review to GitHub using the GitHub MCP tool by:
# 1. Creating a pending review: Use the mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review to create a Pending Pull Request Review.
#
# 2. Adding review comments:
# 2.1 Use the mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review to add comments to the Pending Pull Request Review. Inline comments are preferred whenever possible, so repeat this step, calling mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review, as needed. All comments about specific lines of code should use inline comments. It is preferred to use code suggestions when possible, which include a code block that is labeled "suggestion", which contains what the new code should be. All comments should also have a severity. The syntax is:
# Normal Comment Syntax:
# <COMMENT>
# {{SEVERITY}} {{COMMENT_TEXT}}
# </COMMENT>
#
# Inline Comment Syntax: (Preferred):
# <COMMENT>
# {{SEVERITY}} {{COMMENT_TEXT}}
# ```suggestion
# {{CODE_SUGGESTION}}
# ```
# </COMMENT>
#
# Prepend a severity emoji to each comment:
# - 🟢 for low severity
# - 🟡 for medium severity
# - 🟠 for high severity
# - 🔴 for critical severity
# - 🔵 if severity is unclear
#
# Including all of this, an example inline comment would be:
# <COMMENT>
# 🟢 Use camelCase for function names
# ```suggestion
# myFooBarFunction
# ```
# </COMMENT>
#
# A critical severity example would be:
# <COMMENT>
# 🔴 Remove storage key from GitHub
# ```suggestion
# ```
#
# 3. Posting the review: Use the mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review to submit the Pending Pull Request Review.
#
# 3.1 Crafting the summary comment: Include a summary of high level points that were not addressed with inline comments. Be concise. Do not repeat details mentioned inline.
#
# Structure your summary comment using this exact format with markdown:
# ## 📋 Review Summary
#
# Provide a brief 2-3 sentence overview of the PR and overall
# assessment.
#
# ## 🔍 General Feedback
# - List general observations about code quality
# - Mention overall patterns or architectural decisions
# - Highlight positive aspects of the implementation
# - Note any recurring themes across files
#
# ## Final Instructions
#
# Remember, you are running in a VM and no one reviewing your output. Your review must be posted to GitHub using the MCP tools to create a pending review, add comments to the pending review, and submit the pending review.
#
#
# - name: 'Post PR review failure comment'
# if: |-
# ${{ failure() && steps.gemini_pr_review.outcome == 'failure' }}
# uses: 'actions/github-script@v7'
# with:
# github-token: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}'
# script: |-
# github.rest.issues.createComment({
# owner: '${{ github.repository }}'.split('/')[0],
# repo: '${{ github.repository }}'.split('/')[1],
# issue_number: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_number || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_number }}',
# body: 'There is a problem with the Gemini CLI PR review. Please check the [action logs](${{ github.server_url }}/${{ github.repository }}/actions/runs/${{ github.run_id }}) for details.'
# })