Skip to content

🔨 chore: Optimize PR Docker build workflow#13335

Open
BrandonStudio wants to merge 1 commit intolobehub:canaryfrom
BrandonStudio-CITest:dev/docker-ci
Open

🔨 chore: Optimize PR Docker build workflow#13335
BrandonStudio wants to merge 1 commit intolobehub:canaryfrom
BrandonStudio-CITest:dev/docker-ci

Conversation

@BrandonStudio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

💻 Change Type

  • ✨ feat
  • 🐛 fix
  • ♻️ refactor
  • 💄 style
  • 👷 build
  • ⚡️ perf
  • ✅ test
  • 📝 docs
  • 🔨 chore

🔗 Related Issue

🔀 Description of Change

  • Before: The Docker build CI runs on the author's repo, without access to Docker Hub secrets
  • After: The Docker build CI runs on the base repo, with access to Docker Hub secrets

🧪 How to Test

  • Tested locally
  • Added/updated tests
  • No tests needed

📝 Additional Information

Do pay special attention to security of secrets

@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel bot commented Mar 27, 2026

@BrandonStudio is attempting to deploy a commit to the LobeHub OSS Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We've reviewed this pull request using the Sourcery rules engine

@lobehubbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@nekomeowww - This is a Docker build CI/DevOps workflow change. Please take a look.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@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: 0384c22500

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".


on:
pull_request:
pull_request_target:
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Build PR head ref instead of default branch

Switching the trigger to pull_request_target here changes the checkout context to the repository default branch, so with actions/checkout@v6 left at defaults the workflow now builds and pushes images from default-branch code rather than the PR changes (even though job names and tags imply a PR build). In this workflow (.github/workflows/pr-build-docker.yml), that means labeled/synchronized PRs can publish misleading images and comments that do not correspond to the proposed code unless checkout is pinned to github.event.pull_request.head.sha (or equivalent trusted ref strategy).

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 66.84%. Comparing base (48b5927) to head (0384c22).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on canary.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           canary   #13335      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.84%   66.84%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1891     1891              
  Lines      151395   151395              
  Branches    17300    18003     +703     
==========================================
- Hits       101206   101204       -2     
- Misses      50070    50072       +2     
  Partials      119      119              
Flag Coverage Δ
app 58.23% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
database 96.66% <ø> (ø)
packages/agent-runtime 89.61% <ø> (ø)
packages/context-engine 86.47% <ø> (ø)
packages/conversation-flow 92.36% <ø> (ø)
packages/file-loaders 87.02% <ø> (ø)
packages/memory-user-memory 66.68% <ø> (ø)
packages/model-bank 99.85% <ø> (ø)
packages/model-runtime 84.48% <ø> (ø)
packages/prompts 67.76% <ø> (ø)
packages/python-interpreter 92.90% <ø> (ø)
packages/ssrf-safe-fetch 0.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/utils 90.41% <ø> (ø)
packages/web-crawler 88.82% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
Store 66.11% <ø> (ø)
Services 49.58% <ø> (ø)
Server 67.38% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Libs 51.06% <ø> (ø)
Utils 91.01% <ø> (ø)
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants