GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Fix path-resolution bug in `changenotes.mts validate` by using `getChangenotes` by mario-campos · Pull Request #4156 · github/codeql-action

Conversation

@mario-campos

@mario-campos mario-campos commented Sep 18, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

isValidChangenoteFile receives a file name (no leading path) and then attempts to read that file, regardless of the CWD. If the user's CWD is not in unreleased-change-notes, then the command will likely fail to open the file.

Incidentally, for #4155, I've added getChangenotes, which consolidates some duplicative code between the assemble and validate commands. We can take advantage of that here in validate, and in so doing, fix the bug.

Risk assessment

For internal use only. Please select the risk level of this change:

  • Low risk: Changes are fully under feature flags, or have been fully tested and validated in pre-production environments and are highly observable, or are documentation or test only.

Which use cases does this change impact?

Workflow types:

  • N/A

Products:

  • N/A

Environments:

  • Testing/None - This change does not impact any CodeQL workflows in production.

How did/will you validate this change?

  • Unit tests - I am depending on unit test coverage (i.e. tests in .test.ts files).

If something goes wrong after this change is released, what are the mitigation and rollback strategies?

  • Development/testing only - This change cannot cause any failures in production.

How will you know if something goes wrong after this change is released?

  • N/A

Are there any special considerations for merging or releasing this change?

  • No special considerations - This change can be merged at any time.

Merge / deployment checklist

  • Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
  • Consider adding a changelog entry for this change.
  • Confirm the readme and docs have been updated if necessary.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the size/XS Should be very easy to review label Sep 18, 2026
@mario-campos
mario-campos force-pushed the mario-campos/fix-validate-cmd branch from fc0dbb2 to dedce4e Compare September 18, 2026 20:09
@github-actions github-actions Bot added size/L May be hard to review and removed size/XS Should be very easy to review labels Sep 18, 2026
@mario-campos mario-campos changed the title Fix path-resolution bug in changenotes.mts validate command Fix path-resolution bug in changenotes.mts validate by using getChangenotes Sep 18, 2026
github-advanced-security[bot]
github-advanced-security Bot found potential problems Sep 18, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread pr-checks/changelog/validate.mts Fixed

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@mario-campos
mario-campos force-pushed the mario-campos/fix-validate-cmd branch 2 times, most recently from bf6da6f to 609b22f Compare September 22, 2026 13:14
@github-actions github-actions Bot added size/S Should be easy to review and removed size/L May be hard to review labels Sep 22, 2026
@mario-campos
mario-campos force-pushed the mario-campos/fix-validate-cmd branch from 609b22f to e1b1575 Compare September 22, 2026 13:17
@mario-campos
Refactor changenotes validate to use helper getChangenotes
738bd62 
This reduces duplicate code between `assemble` and `validate`. It also has the benefit of fixing a bug in the current implementation of `validate`, where `isValidChangenoteFile` receives a relative file name where it should receive an absolute one.
@mario-campos
mario-campos force-pushed the mario-campos/fix-validate-cmd branch from e1b1575 to 738bd62 Compare September 22, 2026 14:01
@mario-campos
mario-campos marked this pull request as ready for review September 22, 2026 14:16
@mario-campos
mario-campos requested a review from a team as a code owner September 22, 2026 14:16
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings September 22, 2026 14:16
Copilot started reviewing on behalf of mario-campos September 22, 2026 14:18
View session
Copilot AI reviewed Sep 22, 2026
View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The focused change correctly fixes working-directory-dependent path resolution without leaving unresolved usages.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Fixes changenote validation from arbitrary working directories by validating repository-rooted paths.

Changes:

  • Uses getChangenotes() to resolve changenote paths.
  • Removes the obsolete aggregate validator and its tests.
File Description
pr-checks/​changenotes.mts Validates changenotes using resolved paths.
pr-checks/​changelog/​validate.mts Removes the unused aggregate validator.
pr-checks/​changelog/​validate.test.mts Removes tests for the deleted helper.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
mbg
mbg reviewed Sep 23, 2026
View reviewed changes

@mbg mbg left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The changes look good, but one question about the approach you took.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread pr-checks/changenotes.mts
Comment on lines +119 to +122
const allChangenotesValid = getChangenotes().reduce(
(r, changenote) => r && isValidChangenoteFile(changenote.absolutePath),
true,
);

@mbg mbg Sep 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Rather than replacing the call to isValidAllChangenoteFiles with this inline implementation that uses getChangenotes(), do you think it would be better to update the existing implementation of isValidAllChangenoteFiles to accept ChangenoteFile[] and pass it the result of getChangenotes() here? That way you could keep (most of) the unit tests. You would need to move the definition of ChangenoteFile somewhere that is accessible to both files.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions

@mario-campos mario-campos Sep 24, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I deleted isValidAllChangenoteFiles because the filter became redundant, which just left it to perform reduce. At that point, I think the function became a thin wrapper, which doesn't add much value (IMO). The deleted tests themselves were also redundant because they tested the same conditions but at a different level of abstraction. It seemed "cleaner" to inline it and shorten the test suite, but I'm indifferent about it. If you have a strong preference for keeping it, I won't mind.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions

@mbg mbg Sep 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am happy to merge this as-is for now. It's an easy enough change to make down the line if needed.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
mbg
mbg approved these changes Sep 24, 2026
View reviewed changes
@mbg
mbg added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 24, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit a6ef2c9 Sep 24, 2026
234 checks passed

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@mbg
mbg deleted the mario-campos/fix-validate-cmd branch September 24, 2026 08:27
This was referenced Sep 24, 2026
Merge main into releases/v4 #4168
Merged
Merge releases/v4 into releases/v3 #4171
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mbg mbg mbg approved these changes
Copilot code review Copilot
Copilot review effort
Applies to this pull request for everyone.Learn more about Copilot code review.
Copilot left review comments
+1 more reviewer
@github-advanced-security github-advanced-security[bot] github-advanced-security[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

size/S Should be easy to review

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

4 participants

@mario-campos @mbg @github-advanced-security
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.