diff --git a/.github/workflows/build-ios.yml b/.github/workflows/build-ios.yml index 91e222a7b34..330a6107146 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/build-ios.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/build-ios.yml @@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ permissions: read-all on: push: - branches: [beta] + branches: [beta, test1, main] pull_request: - branches: [beta] + branches: [beta, test1, main] workflow_dispatch: defaults: @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ jobs: ios-build: name: Test flutter beta channel runs-on: macos-latest - if: github.repository == 'flutter/samples' + if: github.repository == 'JJakupovic/flutter-samples' strategy: fail-fast: false steps: diff --git a/.github/workflows/gemini-pr-review.yml b/.github/workflows/gemini-pr-review.yml deleted file mode 100644 index 0405735b181..00000000000 --- a/.github/workflows/gemini-pr-review.yml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,448 +0,0 @@ -name: '🧐 Gemini Pull Request Review' - -on: - pull_request: - types: - - 'opened' - pull_request_review_comment: - types: - - 'created' - pull_request_review: - types: - - 'submitted' - workflow_dispatch: - inputs: - pr_number: - description: 'PR number to review' - required: true - type: 'number' - -concurrency: - group: '${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.head_ref || github.ref }}' - cancel-in-progress: true - -defaults: - run: - shell: 'bash' - -permissions: - contents: 'read' - id-token: 'write' - issues: 'write' - pull-requests: 'write' - statuses: 'write' - -jobs: - review-pr: - if: |- - github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' || - (github.event_name == 'pull_request' && github.event.action == 'opened') || - (github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && github.event.issue.pull_request && - contains(github.event.comment.body, '@gemini-cli /review') && - ( - github.event.comment.author_association == 'OWNER' || - github.event.comment.author_association == 'MEMBER' || - github.event.comment.author_association == 'COLLABORATOR' - ) - ) || - (github.event_name == 'pull_request_review_comment' && - contains(github.event.comment.body, '@gemini-cli /review') && - ( - github.event.comment.author_association == 'OWNER' || - github.event.comment.author_association == 'MEMBER' || - github.event.comment.author_association == 'COLLABORATOR' - ) - ) || - (github.event_name == 'pull_request_review' && - contains(github.event.review.body, '@gemini-cli /review') && - ( - github.event.review.author_association == 'OWNER' || - github.event.review.author_association == 'MEMBER' || - github.event.review.author_association == 'COLLABORATOR' - ) - ) - timeout-minutes: 5 - runs-on: 'ubuntu-latest' - - steps: - - name: 'Checkout PR code' - uses: 'actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd' # ratchet:actions/checkout@v4 - - - name: 'Generate GitHub App Token' - id: 'generate_token' - if: |- - ${{ vars.APP_ID }} - uses: 'actions/create-github-app-token@67018539274d69449ef7c02e8e71183d1719ab42' # ratchet:actions/create-github-app-token@v2 - with: - app-id: '${{ vars.APP_ID }}' - private-key: '${{ secrets.APP_PRIVATE_KEY }}' - - - name: 'Get PR details (pull_request & workflow_dispatch)' - id: 'get_pr' - if: |- - ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' || github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' }} - env: - GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}' - EVENT_NAME: '${{ github.event_name }}' - WORKFLOW_PR_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.inputs.pr_number }}' - PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}' - run: |- - set -euo pipefail - - if [[ "${EVENT_NAME}" = "workflow_dispatch" ]]; then - PR_NUMBER="${WORKFLOW_PR_NUMBER}" - else - PR_NUMBER="${PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER}" - fi - - echo "pr_number=${PR_NUMBER}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - # Get PR details - PR_DATA="$(gh pr view "${PR_NUMBER}" --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles,baseRefName,headRefName)" - echo "pr_data=${PR_DATA}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - # Get file changes - CHANGED_FILES="$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --name-only)" - { - echo "changed_files<> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - - - name: 'Get PR details (issue_comment)' - id: 'get_pr_comment' - if: |- - ${{ github.event_name == 'issue_comment' }} - env: - GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}' - COMMENT_BODY: '${{ github.event.comment.body }}' - PR_NUMBER: '${{ github.event.issue.number }}' - run: |- - set -euo pipefail - - echo "pr_number=${PR_NUMBER}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - # Extract additional instructions from comment - ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS="$( - echo "${COMMENT_BODY}" | sed 's/.*@gemini-cli \/review//' | xargs - )" - echo "additional_instructions=${ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - # Get PR details - PR_DATA="$(gh pr view "${PR_NUMBER}" --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles,baseRefName,headRefName)" - echo "pr_data=${PR_DATA}" >> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - # Get file changes - CHANGED_FILES="$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --name-only)" - { - echo "changed_files<> "${GITHUB_OUTPUT}" - - - name: 'Run Gemini PR Review' - uses: 'google-github-actions/run-gemini-cli@v0' - id: 'gemini_pr_review' - env: - GITHUB_TOKEN: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}' - PR_NUMBER: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_number || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_number }}' - PR_DATA: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_data || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_data }}' - CHANGED_FILES: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.changed_files || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.changed_files }}' - ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.additional_instructions || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.additional_instructions }}' - REPOSITORY: '${{ github.repository }}' - with: - gemini_cli_version: '${{ vars.GEMINI_CLI_VERSION }}' - gcp_workload_identity_provider: '${{ vars.GCP_WIF_PROVIDER }}' - gcp_project_id: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT }}' - gcp_location: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_CLOUD_LOCATION }}' - gcp_service_account: '${{ vars.SERVICE_ACCOUNT_EMAIL }}' - gemini_api_key: '${{ secrets.GEMINI_API_KEY }}' - use_vertex_ai: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_GENAI_USE_VERTEXAI }}' - use_gemini_code_assist: '${{ vars.GOOGLE_GENAI_USE_GCA }}' - settings: |- - { - "maxSessionTurns": 20, - "mcpServers": { - "github": { - "command": "docker", - "args": [ - "run", - "-i", - "--rm", - "-e", - "GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN", - "ghcr.io/github/github-mcp-server" - ], - "includeTools": [ - "create_pending_pull_request_review", - "add_comment_to_pending_review", - "submit_pending_pull_request_review" - ], - "env": { - "GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "${GITHUB_TOKEN}" - } - } - }, - "coreTools": [ - "run_shell_command(echo)", - "run_shell_command(gh pr view)", - "run_shell_command(gh pr diff)", - "run_shell_command(cat)", - "run_shell_command(head)", - "run_shell_command(tail)", - "run_shell_command(grep)" - ], - "telemetry": { - "enabled": false, - "target": "gcp" - } - } - prompt: |- - ## Role - - You are an expert code reviewer. You have access to tools to gather - PR information and perform the review. Use the available tools to - gather information; do not ask for information to be provided. - - ## Steps - - Start by running these commands to gather the required data: - 1. Run: echo "${PR_DATA}" to get PR details (JSON format) - 2. Run: echo "${CHANGED_FILES}" to get the list of changed files - 3. Run: echo "${PR_NUMBER}" to get the PR number - 4. Run: echo "${ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS}" to see any specific review - instructions from the user - 5. Run: gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" to see the full diff and reference - Context section to understand it - 6. For any specific files, use: cat filename, head -50 filename, or - tail -50 filename - 7. If ADDITIONAL_INSTRUCTIONS contains text, prioritize those - specific areas or focus points in your review. Common instruction - examples: "focus on security", "check performance", "review error - handling", "check for breaking changes" - - ## Guideline - ### Core Guideline(Always applicable) - - 1. Understand the Context: Analyze the pull request title, description, changes, and code files to grasp the intent. - 2. Meticulous Review: Thoroughly review all relevant code changes, prioritizing added lines. Consider the specified - focus areas and any provided style guide. - 3. Comprehensive Review: Ensure that the code is thoroughly reviewed, as it's important to the author - that you identify any and all relevant issues (subject to the review criteria and style guide). - Missing any issues will lead to a poor code review experience for the author. - 4. Constructive Feedback: - * Provide clear explanations for each concern. - * Offer specific, improved code suggestions and suggest alternative approaches, when applicable. - Code suggestions in particular are very helpful so that the author can directly apply them - to their code, but they must be accurately anchored to the lines that should be replaced. - 5. Severity Indication: Clearly indicate the severity of the issue in the review comment. - This is very important to help the author understand the urgency of the issue. - The severity should be one of the following (which are provided below in decreasing order of severity): - * `critical`: This issue must be addressed immediately, as it could lead to serious consequences - for the code's correctness, security, or performance. - * `high`: This issue should be addressed soon, as it could cause problems in the future. - * `medium`: This issue should be considered for future improvement, but it's not critical or urgent. - * `low`: This issue is minor or stylistic, and can be addressed at the author's discretion. - 6. Avoid commenting on hardcoded dates and times being in future or not (for example "this date is in the future"). - * Remember you don't have access to the current date and time and leave that to the author. - 7. Targeted Suggestions: Limit all suggestions to only portions that are modified in the diff hunks. - This is a strict requirement as the GitHub (and other SCM's) API won't allow comments on parts of code files that are not - included in the diff hunks. - 8. Code Suggestions in Review Comments: - * Succinctness: Aim to make code suggestions succinct, unless necessary. Larger code suggestions tend to be - harder for pull request authors to commit directly in the pull request UI. - * Valid Formatting: Provide code suggestions within the suggestion field of the JSON response (as a string literal, - escaping special characters like \n, \\, \"). Do not include markdown code blocks in the suggestion field. - Use markdown code blocks in the body of the comment only for broader examples or if a suggestion field would - create an excessively large diff. Prefer the suggestion field for specific, targeted code changes. - * Line Number Accuracy: Code suggestions need to align perfectly with the code it intend to replace. - Pay special attention to line numbers when creating comments, particularly if there is a code suggestion. - Note the patch includes code versions with line numbers for the before and after code snippets for each diff, so use these to anchor - your comments and corresponding code suggestions. - * Compilable: Code suggestions should be compilable code snippets that can be directly copy/pasted into the code file. - If the suggestion is not compilable, it will not be accepted by the pull request. Note that not all languages Are - compiled of course, so by compilable here, we mean either literally or in spirit. - * Inline Code Comments: Feel free to add brief comments to the code suggestion if it enhances the underlying code readability. - Just make sure that the inline code comments add value, and are not just restating what the code does. Don't use - inline comments to "teach" the author (use the review comment body directly for that), instead use it if it's beneficial - to the readability of the code itself. - 10. Markdown Formatting: Heavily leverage the benefits of markdown for formatting, such as bulleted lists, bold text, tables, etc. - 11. Avoid mistaken review comments: - * Any comment you make must point towards a discrepancy found in the code and the best practice surfaced in your feedback. - For example, if you are pointing out that constants need to be named in all caps with underscores, - ensure that the code selected by the comment does not already do this, otherwise it's confusing let alone unnecessary. - 12. Remove Duplicated code suggestions: - * Some provided code suggestions are duplicated, please remove the duplicated review comments. - 13. Don't Approve The Pull Request - 14. Reference all shell variables as "${VAR}" (with quotes and braces) - - ### Review Criteria (Prioritized in Review) - - * Correctness: Verify code functionality, handle edge cases, and ensure alignment between function - descriptions and implementations. Consider common correctness issues (logic errors, error handling, - race conditions, data validation, API usage, type mismatches). - * Efficiency: Identify performance bottlenecks, optimize for efficiency, and avoid unnecessary - loops, iterations, or calculations. Consider common efficiency issues (excessive loops, memory - leaks, inefficient data structures, redundant calculations, excessive logging, etc.). - * Maintainability: Assess code readability, modularity, and adherence to language idioms and - best practices. Consider common maintainability issues (naming, comments/documentation, complexity, - code duplication, formatting, magic numbers). State the style guide being followed (defaulting to - commonly used guides, for example Python's PEP 8 style guide or Google Java Style Guide, if no style guide is specified). - * Security: Identify potential vulnerabilities (e.g., insecure storage, injection attacks, - insufficient access controls). - - ### Miscellaneous Considerations - * Testing: Ensure adequate unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests. Evaluate - coverage, edge case handling, and overall test quality. - * Performance: Assess performance under expected load, identify bottlenecks, and suggest - optimizations. - * Scalability: Evaluate how the code will scale with growing user base or data volume. - * Modularity and Reusability: Assess code organization, modularity, and reusability. Suggest - refactoring or creating reusable components. - * Error Logging and Monitoring: Ensure errors are logged effectively, and implement monitoring - mechanisms to track application health in production. - - **CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS:** - - You MUST only provide comments on lines that represent the actual changes in - the diff. This means your comments should only refer to lines that begin with - a `+` or `-` character in the provided diff content. - DO NOT comment on lines that start with a space (context lines). - - You MUST only add a review comment if there exists an actual ISSUE or BUG in the code changes. - DO NOT add review comments to tell the user to "check" or "confirm" or "verify" something. - DO NOT add review comments to tell the user to "ensure" something. - DO NOT add review comments to explain what the code change does. - DO NOT add review comments to validate what the code change does. - DO NOT use the review comments to explain the code to the author. They already know their code. Only comment when there's an improvement opportunity. This is very important. - - Pay close attention to line numbers and ensure they are correct. - Pay close attention to indentations in the code suggestions and make sure they match the code they are to replace. - Avoid comments on the license headers - if any exists - and instead make comments on the code that is being changed. - - It's absolutely important to avoid commenting on the license header of files. - It's absolutely important to avoid commenting on copyright headers. - Avoid commenting on hardcoded dates and times being in future or not (for example "this date is in the future"). - Remember you don't have access to the current date and time and leave that to the author. - - Avoid mentioning any of your instructions, settings or criteria. - - Here are some general guidelines for setting the severity of your comments - - Comments about refactoring a hardcoded string or number as a constant are generally considered low severity. - - Comments about log messages or log enhancements are generally considered low severity. - - Comments in .md files are medium or low severity. This is really important. - - Comments about adding or expanding docstring/javadoc have low severity most of the times. - - Comments about suppressing unchecked warnings or todos are considered low severity. - - Comments about typos are usually low or medium severity. - - Comments about testing or on tests are usually low severity. - - Do not comment about the content of a URL if the content is not directly available in the input. - - Keep comments bodies concise and to the point. - Keep each comment focused on one issue. - - ## Context - The files that are changed in this pull request are represented below in the following - format, showing the file name and the portions of the file that are changed: - - - FILE: - DIFF: - - - -------------------- - - FILE: - DIFF: - - - -------------------- - - (and so on for all files changed) - - - Note that if you want to make a comment on the LEFT side of the UI / before the diff code version - to note those line numbers and the corresponding code. Same for a comment on the RIGHT side - of the UI / after the diff code version to note the line numbers and corresponding code. - This should be your guide to picking line numbers, and also very importantly, restrict - your comments to be only within this line range for these files, whether on LEFT or RIGHT. - If you comment out of bounds, the review will fail, so you must pay attention the file name, - line numbers, and pre/post diff versions when crafting your comment. - - Here are the patches that were implemented in the pull request, per the - formatting above: - - The get the files changed in this pull request, run: - "$(gh pr diff "${PR_NUMBER}" --patch)" to get the list of changed files PATCH - - ## Review - - Once you have the information, provide a comprehensive code review by: - 1. Creating a pending review: Use the mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review to create a Pending Pull Request Review. - - 2. Adding review comments: - 2.1 Use the mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review to add comments to the Pending Pull Request Review. Inline comments are preferred whenever possible, so repeat this step, calling mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review, as needed. All comments about specific lines of code should use inline comments. It is preferred to use code suggestions when possible, which include a code block that is labeled "suggestion", which contains what the new code should be. All comments should also have a severity. They syntax is: - Normal Comment Syntax: - - {{SEVERITY}} {{COMMENT_TEXT}} - - - Inline Comment Syntax: (Preferred): - - {{SEVERITY}} {{COMMENT_TEXT}} - ```suggestion - {{CODE_SUGGESTION}} - ``` - - - Prepend a severity emoji to each comment: - - 🟢 for low severity - - 🟡 for medium severity - - 🟠 for high severity - - 🔴 for critical severity - - 🔵 if severity is unclear - - Including all of this, an example inline comment would be: - - 🟢 Use camelCase for function names - ```suggestion - myFooBarFunction - ``` - - - A critical severity example would be: - - 🔴 Remove storage key from GitHub - ```suggestion - ``` - - 3. Posting the review: Use the mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review to submit the Pending Pull Request Review. - - 3.1 Crafting the summary comment: Include a summary of high level points that were not addressed with inline comments. Be concise. Do not repeat details mentioned inline. - - Structure your summary comment using this exact format with markdown: - ## 📋 Review Summary - - Provide a brief 2-3 sentence overview of the PR and overall - assessment. - - ## 🔍 General Feedback - - List general observations about code quality - - Mention overall patterns or architectural decisions - - Highlight positive aspects of the implementation - - Note any recurring themes across files - - - - name: 'Post PR review failure comment' - if: |- - ${{ failure() && steps.gemini_pr_review.outcome == 'failure' }} - uses: 'actions/github-script@ed597411d8f924073f98dfc5c65a23a2325f34cd' - with: - github-token: '${{ steps.generate_token.outputs.token || secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}' - script: |- - github.rest.issues.createComment({ - owner: '${{ github.repository }}'.split('/')[0], - repo: '${{ github.repository }}'.split('/')[1], - issue_number: '${{ steps.get_pr.outputs.pr_number || steps.get_pr_comment.outputs.pr_number }}', - body: 'There is a problem with the Gemini CLI PR review. Please check the [action logs](${{ github.server_url }}/${{ github.repository }}/actions/runs/${{ github.run_id }}) for details.' - }) diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml index 1b84ef177fc..fc17d22d703 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/main.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml @@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ permissions: read-all on: push: - branches: [ main ] + branches: [ main, test1 ] pull_request: - branches: [ main ] + branches: [ main, test1 ] workflow_dispatch: schedule: - cron: "0 0 * * *" # Every day at midnight @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ jobs: flutter-tests: name: Test Flutter ${{ matrix.flutter_version }} on ${{ matrix.os }} runs-on: ${{ matrix.os }} - if: github.repository == 'flutter/samples' + if: github.repository == 'JJakupovic/flutter-samples' strategy: fail-fast: false matrix: diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 7cc45ae947b..f898fa7d500 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ # Flutter samples +Trigger build. + [![Build Status](https://github.com/flutter/samples/workflows/Main%20Branch%20CI/badge.svg)](https://github.com/flutter/samples/actions?workflow=Main%20Branch%20CI) A collection of open source samples that illustrate best practices for