Community automations updates: bot and community review by MisRob · Pull Request #50 · learningequality/.github

MisRob · 2026-02-23T16:26:09Z

Disclosure: I was assisted by Claude. Revisited, adjusted & tested whole diff.

Summary

Few smaller updates to community-related automations in response to rtibblesbot and community reviews.

Fixes

Adds rtibbles bot to the list of bots so that it's not considered a contributor
- Fixes LE bot replying to rtibblesbot PRs
- Fixes rtibblesbot PRs being added to community PRs spreadsheet

New

Workflow that sends an info message on a community PR when rtibblesbot review requested
Workflow that sends an info message on a community PR when community-label added

Reviewer guidance

Code review should be sufficient. I tested the changes in my local environment. After code review, will give it one last try in our environment via test-actions repo.
You could also have a look at phrasing of the 2 new info messages.

- Don't send replies on its PR - Don't track its PR in contributions spreadsheet

about rtibblesbot review.

when community review invited.

MisRob · 2026-02-23T16:28:04Z

@ozer550 would you please review as a whole
@rtibbles your eyes on security would be appreciated as always
cc @akolson I also welcome your feedback, or just check it out quickly to see the latest updates

MisRob · 2026-02-23T16:33:21Z

.github/workflows/call-pull-request-target.yml

+name: Handle pull request events
+on:
+  pull_request_target:
+    types: [review_requested,labeled]


@rtibbles I tried to use the event-based handler structure for the two new workflows, rather than having separate call-.....yml for each workflow as you suggested, and it seems to work nice ~ thank you. It will definitely save us some time & headaches with maintaining the five repos that call it.

Even though if any new workflows based on pull request target event are added in the future, we may still need to update types: five times. Because not specifying types at all defaults to few default types that weren't sufficient for this use-case. Or we could specify all types right away, but that feelt rather unnecessary.. In any case, even with this small hiccup, it'll still be much easier!

I don't have space to refactor all existing workflows right now to use this handler, but it's tracked in Notion, so I will eventually work my way towards it.

rtibbles

Generally looks good - still wish we could drive things via team membership, but as rtibblesbot is a bit of an edge case, it makes sense.

Claude (and other LLMs) always use old versions of Github Actions because that's the version in their training data :) Should update.

rtibbles · 2026-02-23T16:30:41Z

.github/workflows/pull-request-target.yml

+        description: 'GitHub App Private Key for authentication'
+        required: true
+jobs:
+  review-requested:


I like this structure - I imagine we could make another layer of the workflows that triages between issue and pull request events, so we only ever have to deal with a single point of entry.

Yes, with a small limitation #50 (comment) (you reviewed faster than I wrote it :)

rtibbles · 2026-02-23T16:32:51Z

.github/workflows/pull-request-label.yml

+          app-id: ${{ secrets.LE_BOT_APP_ID }}
+          private-key: ${{ secrets.LE_BOT_PRIVATE_KEY }}
+      - name: Checkout .github repository
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4


Old version of the action.

rtibbles · 2026-02-23T16:32:57Z

.github/workflows/pull-request-label.yml

+          ref: main
+          token: ${{ steps.generate-token.outputs.token }}
+      - name: Setup Node.js
+        uses: actions/setup-node@v4


rtibbles · 2026-02-23T16:33:09Z

.github/workflows/review-requested.yml

+          app-id: ${{ secrets.LE_BOT_APP_ID }}
+          private-key: ${{ secrets.LE_BOT_PRIVATE_KEY }}
+      - name: Checkout .github repository
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4


rtibbles · 2026-02-23T16:33:15Z

.github/workflows/review-requested.yml

+          ref: main
+          token: ${{ steps.generate-token.outputs.token }}
+      - name: Setup Node.js
+        uses: actions/setup-node@v4


MisRob · 2026-02-23T16:39:30Z

Claude (and other LLMs) always use old versions of Github Actions because that's the version in their training data :) Should update.

@rtibbles I actually copy-pasted those versions myself when I was verifying, because they're used in other actions right now, but perhaps it's not best approach? Should we upgrade all of them at once, or should I just address those that I added?

rtibblesbot

Clean set of additions — bot exclusion fix, two new info-message workflows, and community review docs. Well-structured with proper contributor gating on both new workflows.

CI passing. Screenshot confirms both messages render correctly.

suggestion: pull-request-label.js — consider duplicate comment prevention for the label scenario (label can be removed and re-added)
nitpick: docs/community-review.md — mixed bullet style on last line

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Reviewed the pull request diff checking for:

Correctness: bugs, edge cases, undocumented behavior, resource leaks, hardcoded values
Design: unnecessary complexity, naming, readability, comment accuracy, redundant state
Architecture: duplicated concerns, minimal interfaces, composition over inheritance
Testing: behavior-based assertions, mocks only at hard boundaries, accurate coverage
Completeness: missing dependencies, unupdated usages, i18n, accessibility, security
Principles: DRY (same reason to change), SRP, Rule of Three (no premature abstraction)
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
For UI changes: inspected screenshots for layout, visual completeness, and consistency

rtibblesbot · 2026-02-23T16:57:32Z

scripts/pull-request-label.js

+      return;
+    }
+    const prNumber = context.payload.pull_request.number;
+    await sendBotMessage(prNumber, BOT_MESSAGE_COMMUNITY_REVIEW, { github, context });


suggestion: Unlike review_requested, the labeled event can fire multiple times for the same label (remove label → re-add). This would post duplicate bot comments. Consider adding a hasRecentBotComment check like holiday-message.js does, or checking if a comment with this message already exists on the PR.

Not blocking since it's an edge case that requires manual label toggling, but worth considering.

That's valid concern, but I don't think we need to introduce more complexity to take care of an action that we'll rarely, if ever, do.

Fair enough — it's a rare edge case and not worth the added complexity. Withdrawing this suggestion.

rtibblesbot · 2026-02-23T16:57:32Z

docs/community-review.md

+- Before posting your first review, **see the following resources**:
+  - [What makes a code review good or bad?](https://github.blog/developer-skills/github/how-to-review-code-effectively-a-github-staff-engineers-philosophy/#what-makes-a-code-review-good-or-bad)
+  - [How to give a good code review](https://github.blog/developer-skills/github/how-to-review-code-effectively-a-github-staff-engineers-philosophy/#how-to-give-a-good-code-review)
+* If you notice any inappropriate behavior, contact us at [contributors@learningequality.org](mailto:contributors@learningequality.org).


nitpick: This line uses * while all other bullet points in the file use -.

MisRob added 3 commits February 23, 2026 17:17

Do not consider rtibblesbot as contributor

f52a010

- Don't send replies on its PR - Don't track its PR in contributions spreadsheet

Add workflow to send info message

8620cb5

about rtibblesbot review.

Add workflow to send info message

5ab6823

when community review invited.

MisRob requested review from ozer550 and rtibbles February 23, 2026 16:26

MisRob commented Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

rtibbles requested changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

MisRob requested a review from rtibblesbot February 23, 2026 16:54

rtibblesbot reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comments

Conversation

MisRob commented Feb 23, 2026

Summary

Reviewer guidance

Uh oh!

MisRob commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MisRob Feb 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MisRob commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

MisRob Feb 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading