Skip to content

fix(tooling): remove target branch from pull-request workflow#660

Merged
mkesavan13 merged 1 commit intowebex:nextfrom
Shreyas281299:pull-request-change
Mar 23, 2026
Merged

fix(tooling): remove target branch from pull-request workflow#660
mkesavan13 merged 1 commit intowebex:nextfrom
Shreyas281299:pull-request-change

Conversation

@Shreyas281299
Copy link
Contributor

@Shreyas281299 Shreyas281299 commented Mar 23, 2026

COMPLETES # Adhoc

This pull request addresses

Removed the check for branch in pull-request.yml. Allowing feature branches PRs to run pull_request.yml workflow

by making the following changes

Make sure pull requests raised on feature branches run the pull_request.yml workflow

Change Type

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation update
  • Tooling change
  • Internal code refactor

The following scenarios were tested

  • The testing is done with the amplify link
    < ENUMERATE TESTS PERFORMED, WHETHER MANUAL OR AUTOMATED >

The GAI Coding Policy And Copyright Annotation Best Practices

  • GAI was not used (or, no additional notation is required)
  • Code was generated entirely by GAI
  • GAI was used to create a draft that was subsequently customized or modified
  • Coder created a draft manually that was non-substantively modified by GAI (e.g., refactoring was performed by GAI on manually written code)
  • Tool used for AI assistance (GitHub Copilot / Other - specify)
    • Github Copilot
    • Other - Please Specify
  • This PR is related to
    • Feature
    • Defect fix
    • Tech Debt
    • Automation

Checklist before merging

  • I have not skipped any automated checks
  • All existing and new tests passed
  • I have updated the testing document
  • I have tested the functionality with amplify link

Make sure to have followed the contributing guidelines before submitting.

@Shreyas281299 Shreyas281299 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 23, 2026 09:52
@Shreyas281299 Shreyas281299 added the validated Indicates that the PR is ready for actions label Mar 23, 2026
@mkesavan13 mkesavan13 merged commit de80571 into webex:next Mar 23, 2026
11 of 12 checks passed
Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dd187c499b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines 5 to 6
pull_request_target:
branches:
- next

types: [opened, labeled, reopened, synchronize]

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Restore base-branch restriction on pull_request_target

Removing the branches filter from pull_request_target broadens this privileged workflow to PRs targeting any branch, but the jobs still check out github.event.pull_request.head.sha and run repository code with many secrets exposed at workflow scope. In practice, once a maintainer applies the validated label, untrusted PR code can now execute with secrets for every target branch (not just next), which materially increases secret-exposure risk and CI blast radius for release/hotfix branches.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

validated Indicates that the PR is ready for actions

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants