Skip to content

ci: bump umm-actually to v0.3.14 - #8

Merged
aliasunder merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bump-umm-actually-v0-3-14
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

aliasunder merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bump-umm-actually-v0-3-14

Conversation

@aliasunder

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Catches the review workflow up to the current release. The workflow landed pinned at v0.3.11; the other consumers are on v0.3.14, which since v0.3.11 adds the authoritative per-attempt request deadline (default 900s), the unknown-file finding filter, exclude_paths, and priority-doc budget/visibility fixes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@aliasunder
aliasunder merged commit 75fd19a into main Sep 3, 2026
7 checks passed
@aliasunder
aliasunder deleted the bump-umm-actually-v0-3-14 branch September 3, 2026 21:03
@umm-actually

umm-actually Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Update the request_timeout_seconds default to 900s
Low severity · correctness · high confidence

.github/workflows/umm_review.yml:96 — beyond the diff's line ranges, in code the changes touch or depend on.

The workflow comment says request_timeout_seconds defaults to 600s (empty var) but the pinned v0.3.14 adds the per-attempt deadline with a default of 900s per the PR description. The pinned action and the comment now disagree, so any operator reading the workflow gets a stale default.

Failure scenario: An operator leaves UMM_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_SECONDS unset (the default), relies on the documented 600s cap, and observes each model attempt now running up to 900s before the retry/fallback ladder advances — the documented value no longer matches the configured behavior, leading to wrong timeout budget and prolonged CI runs.

Suggested fix
Change the 'Empty = 600' comment to 'Empty = 900' (or drop the number and refer to the action's v0.3.14 default). Verify against the action's actual defaults for any other inputs whose comments could be stale.

umm-actually · deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731

@umm-actually

umm-actually Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Add umm_review.yml to the workflow structure docs
Low severity · correctness · medium confidence

README.md:25 — beyond the diff's line ranges, in code the changes touch or depend on.

Pre-existing: the structure trees in README.md and AGENTS.md list only auto_release.yml and manual_release.yml under .github/workflows/ and describe the directory as release automation, omitting umm_review.yml — a secret-bearing workflow that runs on every owner PR and comment trigger. The docs' tree implies the review workflow does not exist, which is a stale description of the current repo.

Failure scenario: A reader or an AI agent navigating by the documented structure looks for how the repo's review automation is configured, finds no mention of a review workflow, and cannot see that PR-triggered, secrets-bearing workflow before it runs — e.g., auditing the repo's CI surface and missing the only workflow that posts PR comments and runs the OpenRouter key.

Suggested fix
Add a bullet to the structure section, e.g. `.github/workflows/umm_review.yml — automated PR review (umm-actually bot)`, and update README.md's .github/workflows line accordingly. (Also in AGENTS.md's structure tree.)

umm-actually · deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731

@umm-actually

umm-actually Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

umm-actually reviewed at eb06603

2 new finding(s) posted (2 tracked finding(s) across all runs).


umm-actually · deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731

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.

1 participant