test: Update requirements.txt #159
Conversation
WalkthroughThis PR simplifies the GitHub Action's dependency installation process by replacing multi-step artifact handling (download, verification, installation) with a single requirements.txt-based installation command. The commit-check dependency is updated from a PyPI release to a Git-based installation from a feature branch. Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram participant Action participant pip participant Git participant Main Action->>pip: pip install -r requirements.txt pip->>Git: Fetch commit-check from feature branch Git-->>pip: Feature branch code pip->>Action: Dependencies installed Action->>Main: python3 main.py Main-->>Action: Execution complete Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
Commit-Check ✔️ |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| # Install artifacts | ||
| python3 -m pip install -r "$GITHUB_ACTION_PATH/requirements.txt" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update misleading comment on line 51.
The comment says "Install artifacts" but the code now installs from requirements.txt. Update for clarity:
- # Install artifacts + # Install dependencies from requirements.txt python3 -m pip install -r "$GITHUB_ACTION_PATH/requirements.txt"📝 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.
| # Install artifacts | |
| python3 -m pip install -r "$GITHUB_ACTION_PATH/requirements.txt" | |
| # Install dependencies from requirements.txt | |
| python3 -m pip install -r "$GITHUB_ACTION_PATH/requirements.txt" |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In action.yml around lines 51 to 52, the inline comment "Install artifacts" is now misleading because the step installs Python packages from requirements.txt; update the comment to clearly reflect the action (e.g., "Install Python dependencies from requirements.txt") so it matches the pip install command and improves readability. | # Install commit-check CLI | ||
| # For details please see: https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check | ||
| commit-check==2.1.1 | ||
| git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
Feature branch dependency is not production-ready for a GitHub Action.
Using feature/support-github-user-to-get-env as the source for commit-check introduces multiple risks:
- Branches can be deleted, force-pushed, or contain unstable changes
- No reproducibility guarantees across workflow runs
- Users of this action cannot rely on consistent behavior
Additionally, the Git URL format should follow PEP 440 by including the package name: commit-check @ git+https://... instead of the direct URL format.
For reproducibility and stability, pin to a specific commit hash rather than a branch name. Consider whether this change should merge to main, or if it's temporary for testing issue #156.
Suggested format if committing to main:
-git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env +commit-check @ git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@<COMMIT_HASH>Or, if reverting to PyPI after testing:
-git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env +commit-check==2.1.1I'll verify the key claims in the review comment by gathering information about pip dependency formats and the codebase context.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check the full requirements.txt file and surrounding context if [ -f "requirements.txt" ]; then echo "=== requirements.txt content ===" cat requirements.txt echo "" echo "=== file metadata ===" wc -l requirements.txt else echo "requirements.txt not found" fiLength of output: 312
🌐 Web query:
PEP 440 pip git dependency format package name required 💡 Result:
Short answer: Yes — when using PEP 440 "direct references" as dependency specifiers (the supported form for install_requires / pyproject dependencies / PEP 508), you must include the package name: use "PackageName @ ". PEP 440 defines the "name @ URL" direct-reference form, and setuptools / modern tooling expect "Package @ git+https://…". Pip historically accepts legacy VCS URLs like git+https://... and can infer a name from a #egg= fragment for installs, but the canonical PEP‑440/PEP‑508 style is "Name @ URL" and omitting the name is not supported for dependency fields. [1][2][3][4]
Sources:
- PEP 440 — direct references (name @ URL). [1]
- setuptools documentation — "Direct URL dependencies" examples using "Package-A @ git+https://…". [2]
- pip VCS docs — explanation of #egg fragment and legacy VCS URL behavior. [3]
- PEP 508 note: PEP‑440's URL reference form and that tooling uses it. [4]
🌐 Web query:
commit-check PyPI package current version 💡 Result:
The current PyPI version of the commit-check package is 2.1.0 — uploaded Oct 20, 2025. [1]
Sources
- PyPI project page for commit-check (release 2.1.0). [1]
🌐 Web query:
pip git+https without package name legacy format compatibility issues 💡 Result:
Short answer: the old "legacy" way (git+https://...#egg=Name or #egg=Name&subdirectory=...) is still supported by many pip versions but causes compatibility problems with newer packaging standards. Use the PEP‑508 direct-reference form "Name @ git+https://..." (and subdirectory= when needed) for best compatibility with modern pip, pip-tools, and pyproject-based builds.
Key points and examples
- Legacy form: pip historically relied on the fragment #egg=PackageName (and &subdirectory=path) to determine the project name before metadata was inspected; that format can be fragile (editable installs, subdirectory resolution, older pip behavior). Example: git+https://github.com/user/repo.git#egg=pkg&subdirectory=src/pkg. [2][3]
- Modern/PEP‑508 form: specify the install name up front: pkg @ git+https://github.com/user/repo.git@ref#subdirectory=src/pkg — this is the recommended form for current pip and tools that parse requirements. It avoids relying on the egg fragment and works better with pyproject-based projects. [1][3]
- Practical compatibility warnings:
- Very old pip versions required #egg and may not understand the PEP‑508 "pkg @" syntax; conversely, some tooling that still expects #egg can fail if you only use "pkg @ …". If you must support a wide range of pip versions, you may need to include both forms in documentation or pin minimum pip. [2][3]
- Subdirectory handling and editable installs have historically had bugs (wrong egg-link target, entry_points/import issues). Test installs with your target pip version. [3]
- pip writes direct_url.json / PEP‑610 metadata for direct VCS installs; modern installers/readers rely on that. Use current pip to get consistent metadata. [1]
Recommendations
- Prefer: "mypkg @ git+https://github.com/owner/repo.git@v1.2.3#subdirectory=path/to/pkg".
- If you must support very old pip, document that those users may need the legacy "#egg=Name" fragment or require them to upgrade pip.
- Test installs with the minimum pip you intend to support and with editable vs non-editable modes.
Sources
- PEP‑610 / direct URL metadata and examples (direct_url.json, VCS examples). [1]
- pip VCS URL format and docs (git+https and #egg usage). [2]
- Community reports and subdirectory/editable quirks (Stack Overflow examples). [3]
Feature branch dependency is not production-ready for a GitHub Action, and the format needs correction.
Using feature/support-github-user-to-get-env as the source for commit-check introduces real risks:
- Branches can be deleted, force-pushed, or contain unstable changes
- No reproducibility guarantees across workflow runs
- Users of this action cannot rely on consistent behavior
The Git URL format must also follow PEP 440 by including the package name: commit-check @ git+https://... instead of the current direct URL format (which relies on legacy pip conventions).
For reproducibility and stability, pin to a specific commit hash rather than a branch name. Consider whether this change should merge to main, or if it's temporary for testing.
Suggested format if committing to main:
-git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env +commit-check @ git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@<COMMIT_HASH>Or, if reverting to PyPI after testing:
-git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env +commit-check==2.1.0📝 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.
| git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@feature/support-github-user-to-get-env | |
| commit-check==2.1.0 |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In requirements.txt around line 3, the dependency points to a feature branch URL which is unsafe for a production GitHub Action and uses a non-PEP440 pip URL format; replace the branch reference with a fixed commit hash and conform to PEP 440 by prefacing the VCS URL with the package name (e.g., "commit-check @ git+https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check.git@<commit-hash>"), or alternatively revert to the published PyPI package if this was only for testing; ensure the chosen commit hash exists and is immutable, update the requirements line accordingly, and consider merging the feature into main or switching back to the PyPI package as a permanent solution. 
test #156
Summary by CodeRabbit