Skip to content

Comments

add pull-requests: read permission to verify-dockerfile workflow#112

Merged
kernelsam merged 1 commit intomainfrom
add-pull-requests-read-permission
Feb 18, 2026
Merged

add pull-requests: read permission to verify-dockerfile workflow#112
kernelsam merged 1 commit intomainfrom
add-pull-requests-read-permission

Conversation

@kernelsam
Copy link
Contributor

The verify-dockerfile-refreshed-at-updated reusable workflow needs pull-requests: read to function correctly with the callers permissions.

The verify-dockerfile-refreshed-at-updated reusable workflow needs
pull-requests: read to function correctly with the callers permissions.
@kernelsam kernelsam requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2026 18:50
@kernelsam kernelsam requested a review from docktermj February 18, 2026 18:50
@kernelsam kernelsam enabled auto-merge (squash) February 18, 2026 18:50
@github-actions
Copy link

🤖 Claude Code Review

PR Code Review

PR Summary: Adds pull-requests: read permission to the verify-dockerfile-refreshed-at-updated.yaml workflow.


Code Quality

  • Style guide: Unable to fetch the remote style guide due to permissions, but the change is a single-line YAML addition consistent with the file's existing formatting. ✅
  • No commented-out code: No comments present. ✅
  • Meaningful variable names: N/A — YAML configuration, not code. ✅
  • DRY principle: N/A for this change. ✅
  • Defects / Logic errors: The change is correct. The workflow calls a reusable workflow (verify-dockerfile-refreshed-at-updated.yaml@v4) that likely needs to read PR metadata (e.g., to inspect changed files in the PR). Adding pull-requests: read at the job level is the appropriate way to grant this. The top-level permissions: {} correctly locks down default permissions, and the job-level override is the right pattern. ✅
  • CLAUDE.md: No issues — the project config is not impacted by this workflow-only change. ✅

Testing

  • Unit/integration tests: N/A — this is a CI workflow configuration change, not application code. ✅

Documentation

  • README updated: N/A — no user-facing behavior changed. ✅
  • API docs: N/A. ✅
  • Inline comments: N/A for this change. ✅
  • CHANGELOG.md: Not updated, but this is a minor CI infrastructure fix; acceptable. ✅
  • Markdown formatting: N/A — YAML file, not Markdown. ✅

Security

  • No hardcoded credentials: None present. ✅
  • Input validation: N/A. ✅
  • Proper error handling: N/A. ✅
  • No sensitive data in logs: N/A. ✅
  • License files (.lic): None present. ✅
  • Permission scope: The added permission (pull-requests: read) is read-only and narrowly scoped at the job level. The top-level permissions: {} ensures no implicit permissions are granted elsewhere in the workflow. This follows the principle of least privilege. ✅

Summary

This is a minimal, correct, and well-scoped change. The pull-requests: read permission is needed for the reusable workflow to access PR context (e.g., comparing changed files against the PR diff). No issues found.

Verdict: Approved

Automated code review analyzing defects and coding standards

@github-actions
Copy link

Super-linter summary

Language Validation result
CHECKOV Pass ✅
GITHUB_ACTIONS Pass ✅
GITHUB_ACTIONS_ZIZMOR Pass ✅
GITLEAKS Pass ✅
GIT_MERGE_CONFLICT_MARKERS Pass ✅
JSCPD Pass ✅
PRE_COMMIT Pass ✅
SPELL_CODESPELL Pass ✅
TRIVY Pass ✅
YAML Pass ✅
YAML_PRETTIER Pass ✅

All files and directories linted successfully

For more information, see the GitHub Actions workflow run

Powered by Super-linter

@docktermj docktermj self-assigned this Feb 18, 2026
@kernelsam kernelsam merged commit e50f900 into main Feb 18, 2026
51 checks passed
@kernelsam kernelsam deleted the add-pull-requests-read-permission branch February 18, 2026 19:01
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