Skip to content

Fix validation logic to properly gate bot responses #145

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
DimaBir merged 5 commits into from
Feb 11, 2026
Merged

Fix validation logic to properly gate bot responses #145

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6e9326c
Initial plan
Copilot Feb 11, 2026
9ae42eb
Fix validation logic to properly check only new content
Copilot Feb 11, 2026
cf52458
Use explicit string conversion for validation output
Copilot Feb 11, 2026
9e8976a
Make should_respond output explicitly return string
Copilot Feb 11, 2026
ed81afd
Use ternary operator and improve validation log message
Copilot Feb 11, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 10 additions & 5 deletions .github/workflows/issue-assistant.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ jobs:
}}

outputs:
should_respond: ${{ steps.conversation-state.outputs.should_respond }}
should_respond: ${{ (steps.conversation-state.outputs.should_respond == 'true' && steps.validation.outputs.validation_passed == 'true') ? 'true' : 'false' }}
conversation_state: ${{ steps.conversation-state.outputs.state }}
conversation_history: ${{ steps.conversation-state.outputs.history }}
sanitized_content: ${{ steps.validation.outputs.sanitized_content }}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -246,7 +246,11 @@ jobs:
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');

// Get the latest user content to validate
// IMPORTANT: For issue_comment events, we validate ONLY the new comment content.
// For issues events (new issue), we validate the issue body.
// This ensures we don't re-validate the original issue body on subsequent comments.
// If the original issue had validation issues but a new comment is clean, we allow it.
// If a new comment has validation issues, we block it even if the issue body was clean.
const isComment = context.eventName === 'issue_comment';
const rawContent = isComment
? context.payload.comment.body
Expand All @@ -256,7 +260,7 @@ jobs:

if (!fs.existsSync(securityPath)) {
console.log('::warning::security.js not found');
core.setOutput('should_respond', 'true');
core.setOutput('validation_passed', 'true');
core.setOutput('sanitized_content', rawContent.slice(0, parseInt(process.env.MAX_INPUT_LENGTH)));
core.setOutput('issue_type', 'unknown');
return;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -286,12 +290,13 @@ jobs:
customInjectionPatterns: injectionPatterns
});

core.setOutput('should_respond', result.shouldRespond);
core.setOutput('validation_passed', result.shouldRespond ? 'true' : 'false');
core.setOutput('sanitized_content', result.sanitizedContent || '');
core.setOutput('issue_type', result.issueType || 'unknown');

if (!result.shouldRespond) {
console.log('Validation failed:', result.errors);
const contentType = isComment ? 'comment' : 'issue body';
console.log(`Validation failed for ${contentType}:`, result.errors);
}

respond-with-ai:
Expand Down