Ps/ts install #2

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T18:00:08Z

hjgdjhfgsd
fasdfkjhdsjfh
asdfjkdshkjfjds
asdfjsdhfjkdsh

related to google-github-actions#373 related to google-github-actions#375

… `if` condition formatting.

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T18:00:23Z

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:00:35Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

## 📋 Review Summary

This pull request is a great improvement, refactoring the input validation from a shell script to TypeScript. This change significantly enhances maintainability and testability. The introduction of vitest for unit testing is a commendable step towards ensuring code quality.

🔍 General Feedback

The move to TypeScript for input validation is a solid choice for better type safety and code clarity.
The unit tests are well-structured and provide good coverage for the new validation logic.
The addition of a job summary in action.yml is a nice touch for better visibility in GitHub Actions.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:02:25Z

src/validate-inputs.ts

+        .addList([msg])
+        .write();
+    };
+


🟢 It's good practice to provide a title for the generated summary. This helps users quickly identify the source of the summary in the pull request.

Suggested change

.addList([msg])

.write();

};

core.summary

.addHeading('Input validation warnings', 3)

.addList([msg])

.write();

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:02:34Z

src/inputs.ts

🟢 To improve the developer experience and code clarity, consider adding JSDoc comments to the properties of the returned object. This will provide inline documentation for each input, making it easier for future developers to understand the purpose of each property.

Suggested change

+export const geminiCliActionsInputs = () => {

+ return {

+ /** The GCP location to use. */

+ gcpLocation: core.getInput('gcp_location'),

+ /** The GCP project ID to use. */

+ gcpProjectId: core.getInput('gcp_project_id'),

+ /** The GCP service account to use. */

+ gcpServiceAccount: core.getInput('gcp_service_account'),

+ /** The GCP workload identity provider to use. */

+ gcpWorkloadIdentityProvider: core.getInput(

+ 'gcp_workload_identity_provider',

+ ),

+ /** The format of the GCP token to use. */

+ gcpTokenFormat: core.getInput('gcp_token_format'),

+ /** The scopes to use for the GCP access token. */

+ gcpAccessTokenScopes: core.getInput('gcp_access_token_scopes'),

+ /** The Gemini API key to use. */

+ geminiApiKey: core.getInput('gemini_api_key'),

+ /** The version of the Gemini CLI to use. */

+ geminiCliVersion: core.getInput('gemini_cli_version'),

+ /** Whether to enable debug mode for the Gemini CLI. */

+ geminiDebug: core.getInput('gemini_debug'),

+ /** The Gemini model to use. */

+ geminiModel: core.getInput('gemini_model'),

+ /** The Google API key to use. */

+ googleApiKey: core.getInput('google_api_key'),

+ /** The prompt to use. */

+ prompt: core.getInput('prompt'),

+ /** The settings to use. */

+ settings: core.getInput('settings'),

+ /** Whether to use Gemini Code Assist. */

+ useGeminiCodeAssist: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_gemini_code_assist'),

+ /** Whether to use Vertex AI. */

+ useVertexAi: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_vertex_ai'),

+ /** The extensions to use. */

+ extensions: core.getInput('extensions'),

+ /** Whether to upload artifacts. */

+ uploadArtifacts: getOptionalBooleanInput('upload_artifacts'),

+ /** Whether to use pnpm. */

+ usePnpm: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_pnpm'),

+ /** The name of the workflow. */

+ workflowName: core.getInput('workflow_name'),

+ };

+};

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T18:29:44Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:29:52Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

📋 Review Summary

This pull request is a great improvement, migrating the input validation from a shell script to a more robust and testable TypeScript implementation. The introduction of Vitest for unit testing is also a welcome addition that will improve the long-term quality of the action.

🔍 General Feedback

The refactoring of the validation logic is clean and well-tested.
The new TypeScript files are well-structured.
The addition of unit tests and coverage reporting significantly improves the project's maintainability.

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T18:33:11Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:33:20Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

📋 Review Summary

This Pull Request significantly improves the run-gemini-cli GitHub Action by refactoring input validation logic into TypeScript, introducing Vitest for comprehensive testing, and enhancing the overall development experience. The changes are well-structured and adhere to best practices for GitHub Actions development.

🔍 General Feedback

The migration of shell-based input validation to TypeScript files greatly enhances maintainability, readability, and testability.
The addition of Vitest for unit testing, along with detailed test cases and coverage configuration, demonstrates a strong commitment to code quality.
The new tsconfig.json and vitest.config.ts files establish a robust development and testing environment.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:34:40Z

action.yml

@@ -103,77 +103,35 @@
 runs:
  using: 'composite'
  steps:


🟢 The refactoring of input validation logic from the action.yml to dedicated TypeScript files (src/validate-inputs.ts and src/inputs.ts) is an excellent improvement. This enhances maintainability, readability, and testability of the action's input handling.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:34:44Z

package.json

@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
  "scripts": {
    "build": "echo \"No build required for composite action\"",
    "docs": "./node_modules/.bin/actions-gen-readme",


🟢 The addition of test:unit and test:ui scripts to package.json is a good practice for clearly defining different testing workflows within the project. This improves the developer experience and makes it easier to run specific tests.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:34:49Z

tsconfig.json

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+{


🟢 This tsconfig.json sets up a solid foundation for TypeScript development within the project. The chosen target, module, and strict options are appropriate for a GitHub Action and promote good coding practices.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:34:53Z

vitest.config.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+/**


🟢 The vitest.config.ts file provides a comprehensive configuration for unit testing, including JUnit reporting and V8 coverage. This setup significantly improves the testing infrastructure of the project.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:34:58Z

src/inputs.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/**


🟢 The src/inputs.ts file correctly extracts and encapsulates the logic for retrieving action inputs. The getOptionalBooleanInput helper is a good addition for safely handling optional boolean inputs.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:36:03Z

src/inputs.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach } from 'vitest';


🟢 The tests in src/inputs.test.ts provide good coverage for the geminiCliActionsInputs function, ensuring that all inputs are correctly mapped and handled, including scenarios with unset environment variables. The use of it.each is also a good pattern.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:36:06Z

src/validate-inputs.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+/**


🟢 The src/validate-inputs.ts file effectively centralizes and validates all action inputs. The use of core.warning and core.summary for reporting validation issues is appropriate and provides clear feedback within the GitHub Actions workflow. The exclusion of the require.main block from coverage is a good practice.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T18:36:10Z

src/validate-inputs.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+/**


🟢 The tests in src/validate-inputs.test.ts are comprehensive, covering various scenarios for both valid and invalid input combinations, including error handling. The mocking of @actions/core and the use of expect.stringContaining make these tests robust and effective in ensuring the input validation logic works as expected.

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T19:21:52Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T19:22:02Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

📋 Review Summary

This Pull Request significantly refactors the input validation logic from an inline shell script in action.yml to a dedicated TypeScript module (src/validate-inputs.ts). This change dramatically improves the maintainability, testability, and clarity of the input validation process. The addition of comprehensive unit tests using Vitest, along with a robust testing and coverage configuration, further enhances the quality and reliability of the action.

🔍 General Feedback

The migration of complex shell scripting to TypeScript is a highly positive change, aligning with best practices for larger, more maintainable codebases.
The new src/inputs.ts and src/validate-inputs.ts modules are well-structured, readable, and effectively utilize @actions/core.
The unit tests for both inputs.ts and validate-inputs.ts are thorough, covering various valid and invalid scenarios, and demonstrate excellent use of Vitest's mocking capabilities.
The tsconfig.json and vitest.config.ts files provide a solid foundation for TypeScript development and comprehensive testing within the project.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T19:23:13Z

action.yml

+    - name: 'Install pnpm'
+      if: |-
+        ${{ inputs.use_pnpm == 'true' }}
+      uses: 'pnpm/action-setup@41ff72655975bd51cab0327fa583b6e92b6d3061' # ratchet:pnpm/action-setup@v4


🟡 It's generally good practice to use an exact version for pnpm/action-setup to ensure deterministic builds across different runs, rather than version: 10 which might refer to 10.x.x. Consider pinning to a specific minor or patch version (e.g., 10.0.0).

github-actions · 2025-12-16T19:23:18Z

package.json

  "devDependencies": {
    "@google-github-actions/actions-utils": "^0.8.10",
+    "@vitest/coverage-v8": "^4.0.15",
+    "@vitest/ui": "^4.0.15",


🟢 While npx ts-node is convenient for running TypeScript files directly, for production GitHub Actions, it's often more performant to compile TypeScript to JavaScript first and then run the compiled JavaScript. This avoids the overhead of ts-node at runtime. However, for a validation script, the current approach is acceptable.

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T19:30:46Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T19:30:56Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T20:05:08Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T20:05:17Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

📋 Review Summary

This pull request is a significant and positive refactoring of the action. Moving the input validation from a bash script to TypeScript improves maintainability and allows for more robust testing. The addition of unit tests with vitest and a job summary are excellent improvements.

🔍 General Feedback

The migration to TypeScript is well-executed.
The new tests provide good coverage for the input validation logic.
The job summary will be very helpful for debugging.
Consider adding license headers to all new source files for consistency.
The PR description could be more descriptive of the changes.

github-actions · 2025-12-16T20:06:39Z

action.yml

+        if [[ "${{ inputs.use_pnpm }}" == "true" ]]; then
+          pnpm install --silent --no-audit --prefer-offline
+        else
+          npm ci --silent --no-audit
        fi


🟢 The if condition for checking inputs.use_pnpm can be simplified by moving it inside the run block. This makes the YAML a bit cleaner.

Suggested change

if [[ "${{ inputs.use_pnpm }}" == "true" ]]; then

pnpm install --silent --no-audit --prefer-offline

else

npm ci --silent --no-audit

fi

run: |

if [[ "${{ inputs.use_pnpm }}" == "true" ]]; then

pnpm install --silent --no-audit --prefer-offline

else

npm ci --silent --no-audit

fi

github-actions · 2025-12-16T20:06:40Z

src/validate-inputs.ts

+    core.setFailed(`Input validation failed: ${error}`);
+  }
+};
+


🟢 The license header in the newly created file src/validate-inputs.ts is a good practice. To maintain consistency across the codebase, it would be beneficial to include similar license headers in the other new files as well.

Suggested change

/**

* @license

* Copyright 2025 Google LLC

* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0

*/

github-actions · 2025-12-16T20:06:41Z

src/validate-inputs.ts

+
+/* v8 ignore if -- @preserve */
+if (require.main === module) {
+  validateInputs();


🟢 Adding a JSDoc comment to the validateInputs function would improve code readability and maintainability.

Suggested change

validateInputs();

/**

* Validates the inputs for the Gemini CLI action.

*/

parthasaradhie · 2025-12-16T21:09:16Z

@gemini-cli /review

github-actions · 2025-12-16T21:09:30Z

🤖 Hi @parthasaradhie, I've received your request, and I'm working on it now! You can track my progress in the logs for more details.

github-actions

📋 Review Summary

This is an excellent pull request that significantly improves the maintainability and reliability of the action by migrating the input validation logic from a shell script to a well-tested TypeScript implementation.

🔍 General Feedback

The introduction of unit tests with vitest is a fantastic addition and sets a great standard for the project.
The code is clean, well-structured, and the changes in action.yml are logical and clean.
The only minor issue I found is the copyright year in the new files is set to 2025.

Great job!

github-actions · 2025-12-16T21:10:48Z

src/validate-inputs.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+/**
+ * @license
+ * Copyright 2025 Google LLC


🟢 The copyright year is set to 2025. It should be the current year.

Suggested change

* Copyright 2025 Google LLC

* Copyright 2024 Google LLC

github-actions · 2025-12-16T21:10:49Z

src/validate-inputs.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+/**
+ * @license
+ * Copyright 2025 Google LLC


🟢 The copyright year is set to 2025. It should be the current year.

Suggested change

* Copyright 2025 Google LLC

* Copyright 2024 Google LLC

github-actions · 2025-12-16T21:10:50Z

src/inputs.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/**
+ * @license
+ * Copyright 2025 Google LLC


🟢 The copyright year is set to 2025. It should be the current year.

Suggested change

* Copyright 2025 Google LLC

* Copyright 2024 Google LLC

github-actions · 2025-12-16T21:10:51Z

vitest.config.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+/**
+ * @license
+ * Copyright 2025 Google LLC


🟢 The copyright year is set to 2025. It should be the current year.

Suggested change

* Copyright 2025 Google LLC

* Copyright 2024 Google LLC

parthasaradhie and others added 3 commits December 12, 2025 01:12

itnMoving validate logic to Typescript

78852e7

related to google-github-actions#373 related to google-github-actions#375

Merge branch 'main' into ps/ts-install

6ed18d5

chore: Rename validate_inputs.ts to validate-inputs.ts and adjust…

fbe420a

… `if` condition formatting.

github-actions bot reviewed Dec 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

parthasaradhie force-pushed the main branch from 28c8660 to ba709f0 Compare December 16, 2025 20:54

github-actions bot reviewed Dec 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

++export const geminiCliActionsInputs = () => {
++  return {
++    /** The GCP location to use. */
++    gcpLocation: core.getInput('gcp_location'),
++    /** The GCP project ID to use. */
++    gcpProjectId: core.getInput('gcp_project_id'),
++    /** The GCP service account to use. */
++    gcpServiceAccount: core.getInput('gcp_service_account'),
++    /** The GCP workload identity provider to use. */
++    gcpWorkloadIdentityProvider: core.getInput(
++      'gcp_workload_identity_provider',
++    ),
++    /** The format of the GCP token to use. */
++    gcpTokenFormat: core.getInput('gcp_token_format'),
++    /** The scopes to use for the GCP access token. */
++    gcpAccessTokenScopes: core.getInput('gcp_access_token_scopes'),
++    /** The Gemini API key to use. */
++    geminiApiKey: core.getInput('gemini_api_key'),
++    /** The version of the Gemini CLI to use. */
++    geminiCliVersion: core.getInput('gemini_cli_version'),
++    /** Whether to enable debug mode for the Gemini CLI. */
++    geminiDebug: core.getInput('gemini_debug'),
++    /** The Gemini model to use. */
++    geminiModel: core.getInput('gemini_model'),
++    /** The Google API key to use. */
++    googleApiKey: core.getInput('google_api_key'),
++    /** The prompt to use. */
++    prompt: core.getInput('prompt'),
++    /** The settings to use. */
++    settings: core.getInput('settings'),
++    /** Whether to use Gemini Code Assist. */
++    useGeminiCodeAssist: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_gemini_code_assist'),
++    /** Whether to use Vertex AI. */
++    useVertexAi: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_vertex_ai'),
++    /** The extensions to use. */
++    extensions: core.getInput('extensions'),
++    /** Whether to upload artifacts. */
++    uploadArtifacts: getOptionalBooleanInput('upload_artifacts'),
++    /** Whether to use pnpm. */
++    usePnpm: getOptionalBooleanInput('use_pnpm'),
++    /** The name of the workflow. */
++    workflowName: core.getInput('workflow_name'),
++  };
++};

		@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
		import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach } from 'vitest';

Ps/ts install #2

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Ps/ts install #2

Uh oh!

Conversation

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🔍 General Feedback

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

📋 Review Summary

🔍 General Feedback

Uh oh!

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

📋 Review Summary

🔍 General Feedback

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

📋 Review Summary

🔍 General Feedback

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

parthasaradhie commented Dec 16, 2025

Uh oh!