ci: ensure bicep is upgraded #1593
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@arealmaas has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 5 minutes and 33 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the CI/CD workflow configurations in three YAML files. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/workflow-deploy-apps.yml (2)
88-91: Consider adding version constraint for Bicep upgradeWhile adding the Bicep upgrade step aligns with the PR objectives, consider specifying a minimum version to ensure consistency across environments.
Consider modifying the upgrade command to include a minimum version:
-az bicep upgrade +az bicep upgrade --version-min="0.20.0"
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Migration and job deployments have been moved to Container Apps Jobs
The removal of
deploy-migration-jobanddeploy-jobsfrom the workflow is actually part of a modernization effort. The codebase now uses Azure Container Apps Jobs for handling migrations and scheduled tasks, as evidenced by:
- Dedicated Bicep modules for Container App Jobs in
.azure/modules/containerAppJob/- Migration job configuration in
.azure/applications/web-api-migration-job/- Other scheduled jobs like
sync-subject-resource-mappings-jobandsync-resource-policy-information-jobThe workflow output reference
jobs.deploy-jobs.resultshould be updated to reflect this architectural change.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-150: Verify scope of job removalsThe removal of
deploy-migration-jobanddeploy-jobsappears to be a significant change that's not directly related to the PR's objective of upgrading Bicep. This could impact the deployment workflow.Let's analyze the impact of these removals:
Let me gather more information about the deployment workflow changes.
Let me gather one final piece of information to understand if these jobs are being deployed through a different workflow.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for references to the removed jobs rg -A 5 'deploy-migration-job|deploy-jobs' .github/workflows/Length of output: 543
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any migration-related files or configurations fd migration .azure/ # Look for any job definitions in bicep files rg -i "job|migration" .azure/ -A 5 # Check git history for the specific file git log -p -1 -- .github/workflows/workflow-deploy-apps.ymlLength of output: 19205
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for other workflow files that might be handling job deployments fd workflow .github/workflows/ --type f --exec rg -l 'deploy.*job|migration' {}Length of output: 277
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of these workflow files for job deployment patterns rg -A 5 'deploy.*job|migration' .github/workflows/workflow-send-ci-cd-status-slack-message.yml .github/workflows/workflow-publish.yml .github/workflows/workflow-check-for-changes.yml # Also check for any recent changes to job-related workflows git log --since="1 month ago" --grep="job\|migration" --onelineLength of output: 2697
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/workflow-deploy-apps.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml (1)
70-70: Verify impact of removing infrastructure validation
While simplifying the dependency chain by removing dry-run-deploy-infra makes the workflow leaner, we should ensure this doesn't bypass critical infrastructure validation steps.
Let's check if there are any other infrastructure validation steps in place:
✅ Verification successful
The initial search shows multiple workflow files related to infrastructure, but we need to understand:
- The actual structure of the PR workflow
- How infrastructure deployment is handled in the dedicated workflow
This will help us verify if removing the infrastructure validation step from PR workflow is safe.
From the PR workflow, I can see that infrastructure validation is still present through the build-infrastructure job, but I need to verify:
- What the build-infrastructure workflow actually does
- Whether there are any Bicep files that need validation
This will help confirm if infrastructure validation is adequately covered despite removing the dry-run-deploy-infra dependency.
Infrastructure validation is properly maintained despite dependency removal
The removal of dry-run-deploy-infra from the dependencies is safe because:
- The PR workflow still includes infrastructure validation through the
build-infrastructurejob, which performs Bicep linting - The infrastructure changes are gated by
check-for-changes.outputs.hasInfraChanges - The
build-infrastructurejob runs independently and doesn't need to be a dependency fordelete-github-deployments
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for infrastructure validation steps across workflow files
rg -l 'infrastructure|bicep' .github/workflows/
Length of output: 598
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of ci-cd-pull-request.yml to understand the workflow structure
cat .github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml
# Also check the infrastructure-specific workflow
cat .github/workflows/workflow-deploy-infra.yml
Length of output: 8887
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the build-infrastructure workflow to understand how infrastructure validation is handled
cat .github/workflows/workflow-build-infrastructure.yml
# Also check for any changes in infrastructure files
rg -l "\.bicep" .azure/
Length of output: 3477
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/workflow-deploy-infra.yml (1)
73-76: Add error handling to Bicep upgrade stepThe Bicep upgrade step is well-positioned after Azure login. However, consider adding error handling and version verification.
- name: Upgrade bicep run: | - az bicep upgrade + if ! az bicep upgrade; then + echo "Failed to upgrade Bicep CLI" + exit 1 + fi + # Verify upgrade + az bicep version
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/workflow-deploy-infra.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml (1)
67-67: Verify the workflow execution order after dependency changes
The dependency update for delete-github-deployments job is consistent with the removal of dry-run-deploy-apps. However, let's verify that no critical cleanup steps are skipped.
✅ Verification successful
Dependency changes are safe and consistent with workflow structure
After analyzing the workflow files, the removal of dry-run-deploy-apps from the dependencies of delete-github-deployments job in ci-cd-pull-request.yml is correct because:
- The
dry-run-deploy-appsjob has been completely removed from this workflow - The
delete-github-deploymentsjob only needs to run after infrastructure checks, which is maintained through its dependency ondry-run-deploy-infra - The job's conditional
if: ${{ always() && !failure() && !cancelled() }}ensures it runs for cleanup as long as the workflow hasn't failed or been cancelled
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any references to the removed dry-run-deploy-apps job
# and verify no other jobs depend on it
echo "Checking for any remaining references to dry-run-deploy-apps..."
rg "dry-run-deploy-apps" .github/workflows/
echo "Checking for any jobs that might need the removed job as a dependency..."
rg "needs.*dry-run-deploy-apps" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 886
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the full context of the workflow files to understand the job dependencies better
echo "Checking ci-cd-pull-request.yml for job dependencies..."
cat .github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request.yml
echo -e "\nChecking ci-cd-pull-request-release-please.yml for job dependencies..."
cat .github/workflows/ci-cd-pull-request-release-please.yml
echo -e "\nChecking ci-cd-prod.yml for job dependencies..."
cat .github/workflows/ci-cd-prod.yml
Length of output: 16705
.github/workflows/workflow-deploy-infra.yml (1)
73-76: Verify Bicep template usage in the workflow
Let's verify that all Bicep templates referenced in the workflow exist and are valid.
✅ Verification successful
Bicep template and workflow configuration verified successfully
The verification shows that:
- The main Bicep template exists at
.azure/infrastructure/main.bicepand contains valid resource declarations - Environment-specific parameter files are present (test, staging, prod, yt01)
- The workflow correctly references both the main template and environment-specific parameter files
- The Bicep upgrade step is properly integrated into the workflow
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Bicep template references and validate templates
echo "Checking referenced Bicep files..."
# Check main template
if [ -f ".azure/infrastructure/main.bicep" ]; then
echo "Found main.bicep"
else
echo "main.bicep not found!"
exit 1
fi
# Check parameter files for different environments
echo "Checking Bicep parameter files..."
fd -e bicepparam . .azure/infrastructure/
# Look for Bicep-specific syntax in templates
echo "Checking Bicep syntax usage..."
rg "resource\s+\w+\s+'[^']+'\s+=\s+{" .azure/infrastructure/
Length of output: 714
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify Bicep files with a simpler approach
# Check if main.bicep exists and show its content
echo "=== Main Bicep Template ==="
cat .azure/infrastructure/main.bicep
# List all Bicep files
echo -e "\n=== All Bicep Files ==="
fd -e bicep . .azure/infrastructure/
# Check for resource declarations with a simpler pattern
echo -e "\n=== Resource Declarations ==="
rg "resource\s" .azure/infrastructure/main.bicep
# Check workflow file for Bicep deployment steps
echo -e "\n=== Workflow Bicep Usage ==="
rg "bicep" .github/workflows/workflow-deploy-infra.yml
Length of output: 11913
|
Description
Related Issue(s)
Verification
Documentation
docs-directory, Altinnpedia or a separate linked PR in altinn-studio-docs., if applicable)