fix required_approving_review_count bug

github · Dec 12, 2024 · a6e8a55 · a6e8a55
1 parent 15aaec6
commit a6e8a55
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 4 changed files with 67 additions and 18 deletions.
diff --git a/__tests__/functions/branch-protection-checks.test.js b/__tests__/functions/branch-protection-checks.test.js
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ var octokit
 var data
 var rulesets
 
-// const debugMock = jest.spyOn(core, 'debug').mockImplementation(() => {})
+const debugMock = jest.spyOn(core, 'debug').mockImplementation(() => {})
 const warningMock = jest.spyOn(core, 'warning').mockImplementation(() => {})
 const infoMock = jest.spyOn(core, 'info').mockImplementation(() => {})
 
@@ -219,3 +219,42 @@ test('finds that all suggested branch rulesets are defined but required reviews
     `🔐 branch ${COLORS.highlight}rulesets${COLORS.reset} for branch ${COLORS.highlight}${data.branch}${COLORS.reset} contains the required_approving_review_count parameter but it is set to 0`
   )
 })
+
+test('should still pass even with many required reviewers', async () => {
+  rulesets = SUGGESTED_RULESETS.map(suggested_rule => {
+    return {
+      type: suggested_rule.type,
+      parameters: suggested_rule.parameters
+    }
+  })
+
+  rulesets = rulesets.map(rule => {
+    if (rule.type === 'pull_request') {
+      return {
+        type: 'pull_request',
+        parameters: {
+          ...rule.parameters,
+          required_approving_review_count: 4
+        }
+      }
+    }
+    return rule
+  })
+
+  octokit = {
+    rest: {
+      repos: {
+        getBranchRules: jest.fn().mockReturnValueOnce({data: rulesets})
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  expect(await branchRulesetChecks(context, octokit, data)).toStrictEqual({
+    success: true,
+    failed_checks: []
+  })
+  expect(warningMock).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
+  expect(debugMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    `required_approving_review_count is 4 - OK`
+  )
+})
diff --git a/dist/index.js b/dist/index.js
diff --git a/dist/index.js.map b/dist/index.js.map
diff --git a/src/functions/branch-ruleset-checks.js b/src/functions/branch-ruleset-checks.js
@@ -46,14 +46,19 @@ export async function branchRulesetChecks(context, octokit, data) {
       } else if (rule_parameters) {
         Object.keys(rule_parameters).forEach(key => {
           if (branch_rule.parameters[key] !== rule_parameters[key]) {
-            if (
-              key === 'required_approving_review_count' &&
-              branch_rule.parameters['required_approving_review_count'] === 0
-            ) {
-              core.warning(
-                `🔐 branch ${COLORS.highlight}rulesets${COLORS.reset} for branch ${COLORS.highlight}${branch}${COLORS.reset} contains the required_approving_review_count parameter but it is set to 0`
-              )
-              failed_checks.push(`mismatch_${rule_type}_${key}`)
+            if (key === 'required_approving_review_count') {
+              if (
+                branch_rule.parameters['required_approving_review_count'] === 0
+              ) {
+                core.warning(
+                  `🔐 branch ${COLORS.highlight}rulesets${COLORS.reset} for branch ${COLORS.highlight}${branch}${COLORS.reset} contains the required_approving_review_count parameter but it is set to 0`
+                )
+                failed_checks.push(`mismatch_${rule_type}_${key}`)
+              } else {
+                core.debug(
+                  `required_approving_review_count is ${branch_rule.parameters['required_approving_review_count']} - OK`
+                )
+              }
             } else {
               core.warning(
                 `🔐 branch ${COLORS.highlight}rulesets${COLORS.reset} for branch ${COLORS.highlight}${branch}${COLORS.reset} contains a rule of type ${COLORS.highlight}${rule_type}${COLORS.reset} with a parameter ${COLORS.highlight}${key}${COLORS.reset} which does not match the suggested parameter`