Add title and description to GitHub Action Investigator script #730
Conversation
Investigator reportRoot Cause AnalysisThe failure seems to be related to the TypeScript compilation step introduced in the logs. The error message: indicates a TypeScript syntax error in suggests that the compilation failed due to this syntax issue. Suggested FixTo address this issue, ensure that the file Diff with Suggested FixWithout the exact contents of DIFF ./genaisrc/fs.genai.mjs: [original line number] <2 lines before changes (not the whole file)>
- [original line number] <erroneous line with unexpected keyword or identifier>
+ <corrected line without syntax error>
[original line number] <2 lines after changes (not the whole file)>
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| if (pullRequest) _ghInfo.issue = pullRequest | ||
| } | ||
| if (!_ghInfo) | ||
| _ghInfo = await githubParseEnv(process.env, { issue: pullRequest }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The pullRequest variable is not checked for undefined or null before being used. This could lead to unexpected behavior if pullRequest is undefined or null. Please add a check for pullRequest before using it. 😊
generated by pr-review-commit
missing_check
| @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ export async function githubParseEnv( | |||
| res.owner = owner.login | |||
| res.repository = res.owner + "/" + res.repo | |||
| } | |||
| if (!isNaN(options?.issue)) res.issue = options.issue | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The options?.issue is not checked for undefined or null before being used. This could lead to unexpected behavior if options?.issue is undefined or null. Please add a check for options?.issue before using it. 😊
generated by pr-review-commit
missing_check
| @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ export async function githubParseEnv( | |||
| res.owner = owner.login | |||
| res.repository = res.owner + "/" + res.repo | |||
| } | |||
| if (!isNaN(options?.issue)) res.issue = options.issue | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The use of isNaN(options?.issue) could lead to type coercion and unexpected behavior. Consider using Number.isNaN(Number(options?.issue)) for a safer check. 😊
generated by pr-review-commit
type_coercion
No description provided.