Changed Vale and markdownlint worklows to run on just the changed lines#5830
Changed Vale and markdownlint worklows to run on just the changed lines#5830himeshsiriwardana wants to merge 12 commits intowso2:masterfrom
Conversation
WalkthroughUpdated CI workflows (minor lint filter change and a no-op markdownlint line change) and expanded the SMS OTP passwordless login docs with clearer prerequisites and a new configuration section; two SPA docs received trivial whitespace/wording edits. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
himeshsiriwardana
changed the title
himeshsiriwardana
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml:
- Around line 16-30: The changed-files step is emitting comma-separated paths
which reviewdog expects as newline-separated; update the
tj-actions/changed-files step (uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v46, id:
changed-files) to set separator: "\n" so that
steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files produces newline-separated file
paths consumed by the reviewdog/action-markdownlint step (paths: ${{
steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }}).
In @.github/workflows/style-checker.yml:
- Around line 23-27: The workflow references the mutable branch tag
"errata-ai/vale-action@reviewdog"; pin the action to the stable release by
replacing that with the specific version tag (for example
"errata-ai/vale-action@v2.1.1") in the step that currently reads uses:
errata-ai/vale-action@reviewdog so the action is reproducible and secure.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml.github/workflows/style-checker.yml
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml (2)
12-14: LGTM!Using
fetch-depth: 0is correct for enabling proper diff detection between the PR branch and base branch.
22-23: Good use of conditional execution.The
ifcondition properly guards against running the linter when no markdown files have changed, avoiding unnecessary workflow failures.
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml
Outdated
| - uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v46 | ||
| id: changed-files | ||
| with: | ||
| files: '**/*.md' | ||
| separator: "," | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Markdownlint via reviewdog | ||
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | ||
| uses: reviewdog/action-markdownlint@v1 | ||
| with: | ||
| github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| reporter: github-pr-check | ||
| filter_mode: diff | ||
| fail_on_error: true | ||
| paths: ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
🌐 Web query:
reviewdog/action-markdownlint paths parameter documentation
💡 Result:
Do you mean the GitHub Actions workflow trigger "paths" (on: push / pull_request paths) or an input named "paths" on the reviewdog/action-markdownlint GitHub Action?
🌐 Web query:
site:github.com reviewdog/action-markdownlint action.yml paths input
💡 Result:
I searched GitHub for reviewdog/action-markdownlint and didn't find a repository or an action.yml for that name. I did find many reviewdog actions (e.g., action-eslint, action-shellcheck, action-actionlint) and separate markdownlint actions (markdownlint-cli / actionshub/markdownlint). See examples: [1][2][3].
If you want, tell me whether you meant:
- a reviewdog-provided action for markdownlint (which doesn't appear to exist), or
- a standalone markdownlint GitHub Action (e.g., markdownlint-cli), and I’ll fetch that action.yml and check for a "paths" / "paths"‑style input.
Sources:
[1] reviewdog/action-eslint (example reviewdog action).
[2] reviewdog/action-shellcheck (example reviewdog action).
[3] actionshub/markdownlint / markdownlint-cli (markdownlint actions on GitHub).
🌐 Web query:
site:github.com reviewdog/action-markdownlint
💡 Result:
I couldn't find an active GitHub repository named reviewdog/action-markdownlint. I did find:
- A package/registry entry for reviewdog/action-markdownlint (package listing, last release >1 year ago). [1]
- The reviewdog organization hosts many other action-* repos (e.g., action-remark-lint) and the main reviewdog project. [2][3]
- Note: several reviewdog actions were reported compromised in March 2025 (affecting reviewdog/action-setup and actions that used it). Consider this if you planned to use any reviewdog actions. [4]
Sources:
- Package usage listing for reviewdog/action-markdownlint. [1]
- reviewdog organization / reviewdog repo. [2]
- reviewdog/action-remark-lint (example reviewdog action). [3]
- GitHub Advisory / incident report for compromised reviewdog actions (Mar 2025). [4]
🏁 Script executed:
cat -n .github/workflows/markdownlint.ymlRepository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 986
🌐 Web query:
reviewdog/action-markdownlint v1 action.yml github
💡 Result:
I couldn't find a repository named reviewdog/action-markdownlint or an action.yml for that exact repo/tag on GitHub. The reviewdog org has many action templates (e.g., action-template) and other linter actions, but no action-markdownlint repository appears to exist. [1][2]
If you meant a general Markdown linter action, the GitHub Marketplace recommends alternatives (e.g., DavidAnson/markdownlint-cli2-action or GitHub Super-Linter). [3]
References
- reviewdog organization / action templates and actions. [1]
- reviewdog main repo (reviewdog CLI + actions info). [2]
- GitHub Marketplace — markdown-lint / alternatives. [3]
If you want, I can:
- search for a specific fork/third-party repo named action-markdownlint, or
- show how to create a reviewdog-based markdownlint action (example action.yml). Which would you prefer?
🏁 Script executed:
# Search for any GitHub issues or documentation mentioning the markdownlint action
rg -i "markdownlint" --type md --type yml .github/Repository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 83
🏁 Script executed:
# Check if there are any recent commits or issues related to this workflow
git log --oneline -20 -- .github/workflows/markdownlint.ymlRepository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 137
🏁 Script executed:
# Check the recent commit to see what changed
git show 84232c95c -- .github/workflows/markdownlint.ymlRepository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 1227
🏁 Script executed:
# Search for any mention of action-markdownlint in the entire repo
rg "action-markdownlint" .Repository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 38
🏁 Script executed:
# Search for any documentation about this workflow
find . -name "README*" -o -name "WORKFLOW*" | head -10Repository: wso2/docs-is
Length of output: 103
🌐 Web query:
"reviewdog/action-markdownlint" separator paths format github issues
💡 Result:
Short answer: when an action accepts a "paths" (or "globs") input that is a single string list, provide entries separated by newlines by default; if the action exposes a "separator" input you can change that (e.g., to a comma) and pass a single-line, separator‑joined string. Use quoting / multiline YAML scalar so GitHub Actions preserves newlines.
Examples / references:
- markdownlint-cli2-action: globs default to newline-separated; has a separator input (defaults to \n) so you can pass globs: 'a.md,b.md' with separator: ','. [1]
- reviewdog-style actions commonly accept a single-string paths input (newline‑separated) — see detect-secrets and other reviewdog actions that document a paths/workdir input and examples using a single string. Quote/multiline where shown. [2][3]
If you want, paste the exact action.yml or your workflow snippet and I’ll show the exact YAML you should use.
Sources:
- DavidAnson/markdownlint-cli2-action (separator / globs docs). [1]
- reviewdog/action-detect-secrets (paths/workdir input examples). [2]
- example gist & reviewdog action examples demonstrating newline/multiline inputs. [3]
🌐 Web query:
"reviewdog/action-markdownlint" comma separated paths
💡 Result:
Short answer: reviewdog actions expect path/glob inputs as newline-separated lines (not comma-separated). Use newlines or convert commas to newlines (e.g. with bash parameter expansion or yq). Example:
with:
path: |
docs
README.md
subdir/*.md
If you have a comma list, convert it before passing (example in a run step):
- run: echo "${{ inputs.PATHS//,/\n }}" > paths.txt
Sources: reviewdog action input docs (examples show newline-separated path/glob inputs) and markdownlint/action pattern docs. [1][2]
References
[1] reviewdog action-shellcheck inputs (path: directories are separated by lines). [turn0search2]
[2] markdownlint-cli2-action (globs are newline-delimited). [turn0search6]
Separator mismatch: paths expects newline-separated values, not comma-separated.
The tj-actions/changed-files step outputs comma-separated paths, but reviewdog/action-markdownlint expects newline-separated file paths. Change the separator to "\n":
🔧 Proposed fix
- uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v46
id: changed-files
with:
files: '**/*.md'
- separator: ","
+ separator: "\n"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v46 | |
| id: changed-files | |
| with: | |
| files: '**/*.md' | |
| separator: "," | |
| - name: Markdownlint via reviewdog | |
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | |
| uses: reviewdog/action-markdownlint@v1 | |
| with: | |
| github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | |
| reporter: github-pr-check | |
| filter_mode: diff | |
| fail_on_error: true | |
| paths: ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | |
| - uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v46 | |
| id: changed-files | |
| with: | |
| files: '**/*.md' | |
| separator: "\n" | |
| - name: Markdownlint via reviewdog | |
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | |
| uses: reviewdog/action-markdownlint@v1 | |
| with: | |
| github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | |
| reporter: github-pr-check | |
| filter_mode: diff | |
| fail_on_error: true | |
| paths: ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml around lines 16 - 30, The changed-files
step is emitting comma-separated paths which reviewdog expects as
newline-separated; update the tj-actions/changed-files step (uses:
tj-actions/changed-files@v46, id: changed-files) to set separator: "\n" so that
steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files produces newline-separated file
paths consumed by the reviewdog/action-markdownlint step (paths: ${{
steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }}).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md (1)
16-16: Fix article-noun agreement.The line uses "an mobile" but should use "a mobile" since "mobile" starts with a consonant sound.
📝 Proposed fix
-- [Update the user profile of the users]({{base_path}}/guides/users/manage-users/#update-the-profile) with an mobile number to which the user will receive the OTP. +- [Update the user profile of the users]({{base_path}}/guides/users/manage-users/#update-the-profile) with a mobile number to which the user will receive the OTP.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md (1)
4-4: Good improvement to clarity and conciseness.The rewrite successfully converts passive voice to active voice, making the description more direct and easier to understand.
Optional: Minor refinement for grammatical precision
If you want to be more grammatically precise, consider making "authentication method" or similar the subject:
-SMS OTP (One-Time Password) sends a password valid for a short duration to the user's registered mobile number. The user must enter the password to log in. +SMS OTP (One-Time Password) is an authentication method that sends a password valid for a short duration to the user's registered mobile number. The user must enter the password to log in.However, the current wording is acceptable and commonly used in technical documentation.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md (1)
14-14: Grammar error: incorrect article."an mobile number" should be "a mobile number" (use "a" before consonant sounds).
📝 Proposed fix
-- [Update the user profile of the users]({{base_path}}/guides/users/manage-users/#update-the-profile) with an mobile number to which the user will receive the OTP. +- [Update the user profile of the users]({{base_path}}/guides/users/manage-users/#update-the-profile) with a mobile number to which the user will receive the OTP.
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml:
- Around line 31-38: The workflow step "Run Markdownlint on changed files" calls
reviewdog but never installs it and uses "npx markdownlint-cli" unnecessarily;
add an explicit step before that (named like "Install reviewdog") that installs
reviewdog into the PATH (matching how style-checker.yml does it), and change the
run command in "Run Markdownlint on changed files" to invoke markdownlint
directly (e.g., "markdownlint ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files
}}") instead of "npx markdownlint-cli ...", keeping the reviewdog invocation the
same.
In @.github/workflows/style-checker.yml:
- Around line 27-31: Update the "Install Vale" step in
.github/workflows/style-checker.yml to fetch and install the current Vale
release instead of v2.26.3: change the download URL and archive name used in the
curl command to the latest release (e.g., v3.13.0 and
Vale-3.13.0-linux-amd64.tar.gz) in the step named "Install Vale", and ensure the
subsequent move of the extracted binary to /usr/local/bin/vale still matches the
archive contents; optionally update any checksums or version references
elsewhere in the workflow to reflect the new version.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/style-checker.yml (1)
33-36: Pin Reviewdog to a specific version for reproducibility and security.The installer script is fetched from the
masterbranch, which could change unexpectedly and introduces a supply-chain risk. Pin to the latest stable release (v0.21.0) instead.♻️ Suggested improvement
# Step 4: Install Reviewdog - name: Install Reviewdog run: | - curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin + curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/v0.21.0/install.sh | sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin v0.21.0
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml.github/workflows/style-checker.ymlen/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/style-checker.yml (1)
38-45: LGTM!The Vale execution step is well-structured: it correctly gates on
any_changed, pipes output to reviewdog with appropriate flags (-filter-mode=diffensures only changed lines are reviewed), and properly passesGITHUB_TOKEN.en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md (1)
4-6: LGTM!The documentation is well-structured with clear prerequisites, setup instructions, and a comprehensive settings table. The content accurately describes the SMS OTP passwordless login flow.
Also applies to: 20-53
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml
Outdated
| # Step 4: Run Markdownlint via Reviewdog | ||
| - name: Run Markdownlint on changed files | ||
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | ||
| run: | | ||
| npx markdownlint-cli ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | \ | ||
| reviewdog -f=markdownlint -name=markdownlint -reporter=github-pr-review -filter-mode=diff -fail-on-error | ||
| env: | ||
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing Reviewdog installation causes workflow failure.
The workflow invokes reviewdog but no step installs it. Unlike style-checker.yml, this workflow is missing the Reviewdog installation step. The workflow will fail with reviewdog: command not found.
Also, since markdownlint-cli is installed globally in Step 3, npx is unnecessary—you can invoke markdownlint directly.
🔧 Proposed fix
Add a Reviewdog installation step and simplify the markdownlint invocation:
# Step 3: Install markdownlint-cli
- name: Install markdownlint-cli
run: npm install -g markdownlint-cli
+ # Step 4: Install Reviewdog
+ - name: Install Reviewdog
+ run: |
+ curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin
+
- # Step 4: Run Markdownlint via Reviewdog
+ # Step 5: Run Markdownlint via Reviewdog
- name: Run Markdownlint on changed files
if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true'
run: |
- npx markdownlint-cli ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | \
+ markdownlint ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | \
reviewdog -f=markdownlint -name=markdownlint -reporter=github-pr-review -filter-mode=diff -fail-on-error
env:
GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| # Step 4: Run Markdownlint via Reviewdog | |
| - name: Run Markdownlint on changed files | |
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | |
| run: | | |
| npx markdownlint-cli ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | \ | |
| reviewdog -f=markdownlint -name=markdownlint -reporter=github-pr-review -filter-mode=diff -fail-on-error | |
| env: | |
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | |
| # Step 3: Install markdownlint-cli | |
| - name: Install markdownlint-cli | |
| run: npm install -g markdownlint-cli | |
| # Step 4: Install Reviewdog | |
| - name: Install Reviewdog | |
| run: | | |
| curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin | |
| # Step 5: Run Markdownlint via Reviewdog | |
| - name: Run Markdownlint on changed files | |
| if: steps.changed-files.outputs.any_changed == 'true' | |
| run: | | |
| markdownlint ${{ steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }} | \ | |
| reviewdog -f=markdownlint -name=markdownlint -reporter=github-pr-review -filter-mode=diff -fail-on-error | |
| env: | |
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml around lines 31 - 38, The workflow step
"Run Markdownlint on changed files" calls reviewdog but never installs it and
uses "npx markdownlint-cli" unnecessarily; add an explicit step before that
(named like "Install reviewdog") that installs reviewdog into the PATH (matching
how style-checker.yml does it), and change the run command in "Run Markdownlint
on changed files" to invoke markdownlint directly (e.g., "markdownlint ${{
steps.changed-files.outputs.all_changed_files }}") instead of "npx
markdownlint-cli ...", keeping the reviewdog invocation the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml:
- Around line 8-11: The workflow's lint job runs Reviewdog but lacks explicit PR
write permissions so posting comments can fail; update the workflow by adding a
permissions block granting pull-requests: write (either at the top-level
permissions or scoped to the lint job) so the job 'lint' can create/update pull
request comments for Reviewdog.
In
`@en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md`:
- Line 34: The sentence in the table cell is redundant; replace "Specifies the
expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP won't be valid after this expiry
time." with a tighter phrasing such as "Specifies when the OTP expires; it will
be invalid after this time." Update the table cell text in
add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md accordingly to remove the repeated phrase
"expiry time" and keep the meaning concise.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml (1)
31-35: Pin Reviewdog install to a versioned release.Fetching an install script from
masteris mutable and can change unexpectedly. Pin to a release version.♻️ Proposed change
- name: Install Reviewdog run: | - curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin + REVIEWDOG_VERSION=vX.Y.Z + curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | \ + sh -s -- -b /usr/local/bin "${REVIEWDOG_VERSION}"
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml
Outdated
| jobs: | ||
| lint: | ||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add explicit PR write permissions for Reviewdog.
Reviewdog needs pull-requests: write to post comments. Without explicit permissions, the job can fail under read-only org defaults.
🔧 Proposed fix
jobs:
lint:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+ permissions:
+ contents: read
+ pull-requests: write🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In @.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml around lines 8 - 11, The workflow's lint
job runs Reviewdog but lacks explicit PR write permissions so posting comments
can fail; update the workflow by adding a permissions block granting
pull-requests: write (either at the top-level permissions or scoped to the lint
job) so the job 'lint' can create/update pull request comments for Reviewdog.
| <tr> | ||
| <td><code>SMS OTP expiry time</code></td> | ||
| <td>Specifies the expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP will not be valid after this expiry time.</td> | ||
| <td>Specifies the expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP won't be valid after this expiry time.</td> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tighten wording to avoid redundancy.
“expiry time” + “after this expiry time” is repetitive.
✏️ Suggested tweak
- <td>Specifies the expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP won't be valid after this expiry time.</td>
+ <td>Specifies the OTP expiry time. The generated OTP won’t be valid after this time.</td>📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <td>Specifies the expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP won't be valid after this expiry time.</td> | |
| <td>Specifies the OTP expiry time. The generated OTP won't be valid after this time.</td> |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In
`@en/includes/guides/authentication/passwordless-login/add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md`
at line 34, The sentence in the table cell is redundant; replace "Specifies the
expiry time of the OTP. The generated OTP won't be valid after this expiry
time." with a tighter phrasing such as "Specifies when the OTP expires; it will
be invalid after this time." Update the table cell text in
add-passwordless-login-with-sms-otp.md accordingly to remove the repeated phrase
"expiry time" and keep the meaning concise.
1 participant
Purpose
$subject
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.