GitHub Action and GitLab CI/CD Component by gronke · Pull Request #232 · collective/zpretty

gronke · 2026-06-10T12:32:03Z

Reusable GitHub Action and GitLab CI/CD Component for zpretty for easy wiring in common CI runners.

gronke · 2026-06-10T13:06:05Z

Seen in action here: https://github.com/radicallyopensecurity/pentext/actions/runs/27278270476/job/80565303330?pr=160

coveralls · 2026-06-10T13:28:41Z

Coverage is 96.929% — gronke:feat/setup-zpretty-action into collective:master. No base build found for collective:master.

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T08:33:06Z

Thanks a lot @gronke for your amazing contributions!
Would you mind adding a changelog line in HISTORY.md and some lines in the README.md?

Installs zpretty from a configurable spec; dogfooded by a workflow.

Add a Continuous integration section to the README with usage examples for the composite action and the GitLab include, and replace the empty 4.0.3 changelog entry in HISTORY.md.

gronke · 2026-06-11T11:32:38Z

@ale-rt rebased with a additional comment in the readme, see:

https://github.com/gronke/zpretty/blob/39b2fe0f950afee49c8f0bfdf81c475fa826e8c1/README.md#continuous-integration

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds reusable CI integration pieces so downstream projects can easily install and run zpretty in common CI runners (GitHub Actions and GitLab CI/CD), and documents how to use them.

Changes:

Add a composite GitHub Action for setting up zpretty, plus a GitHub Actions workflow to smoke-test it.
Add a reusable GitLab CI job template (.zpretty) and include it in packaging.
Document both CI integrations in README.md and note the addition in HISTORY.md.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`README.md`	Documents GitHub Actions and GitLab CI/CD usage for `zpretty` setup in CI.
`MANIFEST.in`	Ensures the GitLab CI template YAML is included in source distributions.
`HISTORY.md`	Records the addition of the CI integrations.
`gitlab/zpretty.gitlab-ci.yml`	Provides a reusable `.zpretty` GitLab job template that installs and reports `zpretty`.
`.github/workflows/zpretty-action.yml`	Adds a workflow to smoke-test the composite action by installing from the repo checkout and running `zpretty --check`.
`.github/actions/zpretty/action.yml`	Implements the composite action that sets up Python and installs `zpretty` from a configurable spec.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T13:30:03Z

+- uses: actions/checkout@v6
+- uses: collective/zpretty/.github/actions/zpretty@master
+- run: zpretty --check path/to/file.xml


The change of line 147 is wrong.
I agree about the use of <ref> but that should be explained.

Indeed v6 is the latest Action. One could think that Microsoft trains their models on the docs of their own services 🤔

The benefit of pointing at the default branch @master is that users can just copy-paste and use it. Otherwise one would need to remember what the default branch was called.

@ale-rt think we should change to @<ref>?

If you look e.g. at https://github.com/actions/checkout#fetch-only-the-root-files they are pointing to a version.
This of course means that once the version is upgraded the docs should be upgraded as well.

Using <ref> and adding to the docs a note about that might be the mvp.

Ah, I see. You mean to pin the currently latest version in the readme, not <rev>. Makes sense to pin a version, so that linting behavior does not change unexpectedly across repeated builds.

Want to add a drift test for the readme?

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T13:30:21Z

+
+```yaml
+include:
+  - remote: "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/collective/zpretty/master/gitlab/zpretty.gitlab-ci.yml"


I agree about the use of but that should be explained.

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T13:31:52Z

+  before_script:
+    - pip install "$ZPRETTY_SPEC"
+    - zpretty --version


I am +0 on this

The Python environment should need to bother us here, because if Pip fails installing zpretty, it probably also fails upgrading itself.

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T13:33:12Z

+    ZPRETTY_PYTHON_VERSION: "3"
+    ZPRETTY_SPEC: zpretty
+  before_script:
+    - pip install "$ZPRETTY_SPEC"


The GH action looks like:

python -m pip install --upgrade pip python -m pip install "${{ inputs.spec }}"

Maybe we should have the same here.

As mentioned on the Action, I am leaning to remove the pip upgrade, unless you prefer to upgrade it here as well.

I have no hard preference.

ale-rt · 2026-06-11T13:35:51Z

+```
+
+The action takes two optional inputs: `spec`, a pip requirement specifier
+(a release such as `zpretty==4.0.2`, a VCS URL, or `.` to install the


I do not see the reason of checking out a zpretty and then using a spec different from .

Drop the pip self-upgrade from the composite action: if pip cannot install zpretty it will hardly succeed in upgrading itself first. Use `python -m pip` in the GitLab template too, so both runners install with the identical one-liner.

Replace the hardcoded `master` in the GitHub Action and GitLab include examples with the `4.0.3` release tag, the first one that will ship the action and the template. Copy-pasted pipelines are then pinned, so the formatting behavior does not change unexpectedly between runs; a note explains that any other git reference (a newer tag, a commit SHA, or `master`) works as well. Also clarify that the checkout step in the Action example checks out the consumer repository, not zpretty itself.

Assert that both CI examples pin the same version and that it is either the latest released version or the upcoming one from HISTORY.md. The test stays quiet during a normal development cycle, where the README keeps pointing at the latest release, and fails as soon as the pin falls a full release behind.

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

ale-rt · 2026-06-15T06:08:53Z

+        github, gitlab = self.extract_pinned_versions_from_readme()
+        self.assertEqual(github, gitlab)
+        topmost, latest_released = self.extract_versions_from_history()
+        self.assertIn(github, (topmost, latest_released))


I think this test is a pain to keep it running and not very comprehensive.
As you can see in the README you still have a mixture of 4.0.2 and 4.0.3.

gronke force-pushed the feat/setup-zpretty-action branch from fc894fd to 089a282 Compare June 10, 2026 12:36

gronke added 3 commits June 11, 2026 10:06

feat: add a composite action to set up zpretty

2509d21

Installs zpretty from a configurable spec; dogfooded by a workflow.

feat: add a GitLab CI template for zpretty

49ad700

docs: document the GitHub Action and GitLab CI/CD component

39b2fe0

Add a Continuous integration section to the README with usage examples for the composite action and the GitLab include, and replace the empty 4.0.3 changelog entry in HISTORY.md.

gronke force-pushed the feat/setup-zpretty-action branch from 089a282 to 39b2fe0 Compare June 11, 2026 11:30

ale-rt requested a review from Copilot June 11, 2026 13:24

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ale-rt June 11, 2026 13:24 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

ale-rt reviewed Jun 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

gronke and others added 4 commits June 12, 2026 10:38

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

eedf02e

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

ale-rt requested changes Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

gronke commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

gronke commented Jun 10, 2026

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jun 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ale-rt commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

gronke commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

coveralls commented Jun 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading