dependency bump

[jaxxstorm]

Important

Update dependencies, refactor code for better performance, and improve error handling in GitHub Actions workflow and source files.

• Dependencies:
  • Bump @actions/github to ^6.0.0, @octokit/plugin-throttling to ^9.4.0, @octokit/rest to ^21.1.1 in package.json.
  • Add @octokit/core and lodash as new dependencies in package.json.
• Code Refactoring:
  • Refactor run() function in lib/main.js and src/main.ts to use Octokit directly instead of GitHub from @actions/github/lib/utils.
  • Use escapeRegExp from lodash for input sanitization in lib/main.js and src/main.ts.
  • Simplify error handling and logging in lib/main.js and src/main.ts.
• Workflow Changes:
  • Update file extension handling in .github/workflows/test.yml by removing unnecessary escape characters.

^{This description was created by for a4056b9. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 3909560 in 1 minute and 29 seconds

More details

• Looked at 49 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 1425 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. lib/main.js:44

• Draft comment:
  Refactored to use Octokit.plugin for throttling instead of GitHub.plugin. Ensure that this change is compatible with the rest of the code since it changes the underlying Octokit instance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure compatibility with the rest of the code, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

2. package.json:17

• Draft comment:
  Dependency versions updated for @actions/github, @octokit/core, @octokit/plugin-throttling, and @octokit/rest. Verify that updated versions do not introduce breaking changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is about dependency version updates and asks the author to verify that there are no breaking changes. According to the rules, comments on dependency changes or asking the author to verify things are not allowed.

3. src/main.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Replaced GitHub.plugin with Octokit.plugin for throttling, with an explicit type cast. Confirm that this cast is correct and that all intended functionalities of the GitHub plugin are maintained.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the correctness of a type cast and the maintenance of functionalities, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of intentions. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.

4. lib/main.js:42

• Draft comment:
  Updated instantiation of ThrottlingOctokit: switching from Github.plugin to Octokit.plugin. Please verify that the new method preserves the expected throttling behavior and that the options passed via getOctokitOptions are still compatible.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify the behavior and compatibility of the changes made, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of behavior. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue that needs addressing.

5. package.json:17

• Draft comment:
  Dependency bump: '@actions/github' is updated to ^6.0.0 and new '@octokit/*' packages are added/updated. Consider whether '@octokit/core' is necessary since only '@octokit/rest' is directly used.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The rules explicitly state "Do NOT comment on dependency changes, library versions that you don't recognize, or anything else related to dependencies." This is exactly what this comment is about - suggesting changes to dependency management. Even if the suggestion might be valid, it's outside the scope of what we should be commenting on.
  Maybe the comment is highlighting a genuine inefficiency in the dependency structure that could impact bundle size or maintenance.
  While the comment might be technically correct, our rules are clear about not commenting on dependencies. The PR author likely has specific reasons for their dependency choices.
  Delete this comment as it violates our explicit rule about not commenting on dependency changes.

6. src/main.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Refactored usage: replacing GitHub.plugin(throttling) with Octokit.plugin(throttling) along with a type assertion. Verify if the explicit cast (as typeof Octokit) is necessary or if the types can be inferred correctly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates several rules. First, it asks to "verify" something, which our rules explicitly say not to do. Second, it's about types and dependencies, which we're told to ignore. Third, it's not clearly wrong - it's just asking for verification without strong evidence of an issue.
  Maybe the type assertion really is unnecessary and this could be a valid code quality improvement? Maybe there's a clear type error I'm missing?
  Even if the type assertion could be improved, the comment is phrased as a verification request rather than a clear actionable suggestion. And we're explicitly told to ignore dependency and type-related changes.
  This comment should be deleted as it asks for verification, deals with dependencies/types which we should ignore, and doesn't provide clear evidence of an actual issue.

7. lib/main.js:96

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The error message on line 96 says "Unsupported operating system - $this action is only released for Darwin, Linux and Windows". The '$this' seems extraneous or a leftover from variable interpolation. Consider removing the '$' so it reads 'this action' to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

8. src/main.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The error message reads "Unsupported operating system - $this action...". The '$' sign before 'this' seems unintentional. Consider removing it for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. src/main.ts:304

• Draft comment:
  Notice that the warning message for the 'rename-to' parameter spans multiple lines with a backslash. This could lead to unintended whitespace or formatting issues. Consider using a single-line string or a template literal to ensure consistent formatting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_ORAV7EjTjD7EVeTL

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on cfb968a in 1 minute and 56 seconds

More details

• Looked at 1283 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 10 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. lib/main.js:223

• Draft comment:
  The use of fs.readdirSync() with the 'recursive' option is non-standard. Make sure the Node version in use supports this or implement an explicit recursive file search.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a legitimate compatibility concern since the recursive option is relatively new. The code could break on older Node versions. However, this is a GitHub Action which runs in a controlled environment. We need to check if the minimum Node.js version for GitHub Actions supports this feature.
  I don't know for certain what version of Node.js is used in GitHub Actions runners. The comment could be valid if Actions use older Node versions.
  GitHub Actions currently use Node.js 20.x by default, which supports the recursive option. Even if using older versions, they would need to explicitly opt-in to that.
  The comment raises a valid concern but is not actionable since GitHub Actions use Node.js 20.x by default which supports this feature.

2. src/main.ts:215

• Draft comment:
  The fs.readdirSync() call uses the 'recursive: true' option which is not part of the standard Node.js API. Ensure compatibility with your target Node version.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

3. package.json:5

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that adding 'type': 'module' aligns with your project’s build and deployment configurations, especially if mixing CommonJS and ESM modules.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. src/main.ts:215

• Draft comment:
  Using the 'recursive' option in fs.readdirSync is non-standard. Node’s readdirSync does not support a 'recursive' flag. Consider using a dedicated recursive file listing method or library.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

5. src/main.ts:146

• Draft comment:
  The 'while (true)' loop for fetching prerelease releases may risk an infinite loop. Consider adding a maximum iteration limit to prevent potential hangs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

6. package.json:25

• Draft comment:
  The dependency is referenced in code as '@actions/cache' but is listed in package.json as 'cache'. This naming inconsistency may cause module resolution issues. Align the dependency name with the import.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. lib/main.js:56

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected in error message: the text '$this action' should likely be corrected to 'this action'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

8. lib/main.js:228

• Draft comment:
  Extraneous whitespace detected in the warning message: consider reducing the excessive spacing in the string 'rename-to parameter ignored when installing a release from an archive that contains multiple files.'
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

9. src/main.ts:68

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The error message on line 68 contains an extraneous '$' before 'this action'. Consider removing the '$' to make the message clearer.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

10. src/main.ts:219

• Draft comment:
  Stylistic note: The warning message on line 219 has extra spaces between words. You might want to adjust the spacing to be more consistent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct about the extra spaces, this is an extremely minor formatting issue that doesn't affect functionality. The warning message will display the same way to users regardless of the extra spaces. This seems like unnecessary nitpicking that doesn't improve code quality in any meaningful way.
  The extra spaces could make the code slightly harder to read for developers. They might also indicate a copy-paste error that should be cleaned up.
  While code cleanliness is good, this is such a minor formatting issue that it's not worth a PR comment. The spaces don't impact functionality or maintainability in any significant way.
  Delete this comment as it's too minor of an issue to be worth addressing in code review.

Workflow ID: wflow_1qDqqAnjGe16yvYe

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 7a8afc7 in 2 minutes and 17 seconds

More details

• Looked at 1283 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 11 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. package.json:25

• Draft comment:
  Dependency check: The package.json includes a dependency for "cache" via "github:actions/cache", yet the code imports from "@actions/cache". Consider removing or reconciling this duplicate dependency to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. src/main.ts:218

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting: The warning message for multiple files contains excessive whitespace. Consider cleaning up the message string for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

3. lib/main.js:56

• Draft comment:
  Typo in error message: '$this' appears to be an unintended token. Consider changing to 'this'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

4. lib/main.js:223

• Draft comment:
  The use of the 'recursive' option with fs.readdirSync may not be supported in all Node versions. Consider using a well‐tested recursive directory utility or verify compatibility with your target runtime.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a GitHub Action, which runs in GitHub's environment. GitHub Actions run on recent Node.js versions that definitely support the recursive option. The code change is just converting from JavaScript to TypeScript style imports and cleaning up code style - the recursive functionality was already there before.
  The comment does raise a valid point about compatibility in general. If this code were used outside GitHub Actions, it could be an issue.
  However, this is specifically a GitHub Action that will only run in GitHub's controlled environment with modern Node.js versions. The compatibility concern isn't relevant in this context.
  The comment should be deleted since it raises a compatibility concern that isn't relevant for this GitHub Action's specific runtime environment.

5. package.json:25

• Draft comment:
  The dependency 'cache' (set to 'github:actions/cache') appears redundant given '@actions/cache' is already declared. Consider removing the duplicate to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. src/main.ts:68

• Draft comment:
  Typo in error message: '$this' seems unintended. Consider removing the '$' so the message reads 'this action...'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. src/main.ts:215

• Draft comment:
  Using the 'recursive' option with fs.readdirSync may not work as expected across all Node versions. Consider a robust recursive file search implementation or verify the Node version supports this option.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

8. lib/main.js:56

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The error message at line 56 contains '$this action' which should be 'this action'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

9. lib/main.js:228

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting issue: The warning message at line 228 has extraneous spacing in the string literal. Consider removing the extra spaces to improve readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the extra spaces are real, they don't affect functionality since this is just a warning message that will be displayed. The spaces will be collapsed when displayed in most terminals/UIs. This seems like a very minor cosmetic issue that doesn't impact code quality or maintainability in any meaningful way.
  The extra spaces could make the code slightly less readable for developers. They may wonder if the spaces are intentional or have some special meaning.
  While code readability is important, this is an extremely minor formatting issue in a string literal that has no functional impact. Our review guidelines say not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant.
  This comment should be deleted as it points out a trivial formatting issue that doesn't meaningfully impact code quality.

10. src/main.ts:68

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the error message on line 68, remove the '$' before 'this'. It should read: 'Unsupported operating system - this action is only released for Darwin, Linux and Windows'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

11. src/main.ts:219

• Draft comment:
  Cosmetic: The warning message on line 219 contains excessive whitespace between words. Please trim the extra spaces in 'rename-to parameter ignored when installing a release from an archive that contains multiple files.'
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct about the whitespace issue, this is an extremely minor cosmetic issue that doesn't affect functionality. The warning message will display the same way regardless of the extra spaces. This feels like unnecessary nitpicking that doesn't add value.
  The extra spaces could theoretically cause issues if the string is being parsed or compared somewhere else in the codebase. The inconsistent string formatting could also make the code less maintainable.
  This is a simple warning message that's just displayed to users - it's not parsed or used programmatically anywhere else. The spaces will be collapsed when displayed anyway.
  Delete this comment as it's an extremely minor cosmetic issue that doesn't meaningfully impact the code quality or functionality.

Workflow ID: wflow_DDcqY0xPioQjbUYt

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 013e06f in 1 minute and 23 seconds

More details

• Looked at 20 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 299 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. lib/main.js:94

• Draft comment:
  Nice improvement: using _.escapeRegExp avoids potential regex injection from user input.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it praises the use of a specific function without suggesting any changes or improvements. It doesn't ask for confirmation or suggest any specific action to be taken.

2. lib/main.js:94

• Draft comment:
  Using _.escapeRegExp ensures that user-provided extension input is safely used as a literal. Confirm that this behavior (disallowing regex syntax) is intended for custom extension matching.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment points out a security improvement (escaping regex special chars) but frames it as needing confirmation. The change is clearly intentional - the code explicitly shows different handling of default case (regex) vs custom case (literal matching). Asking for confirmation adds no value and violates the rule about not asking authors to confirm their intention.
  The comment does identify an important security consideration. Maybe the author should be aware of this behavioral change?
  While security is important, the code change itself demonstrates clear intent - default case allows regex patterns while custom input is deliberately escaped. No confirmation needed.
  Delete the comment. It violates the rule about asking authors to confirm their intention, and the code already clearly shows the intended behavior.

3. lib/main.js:57

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the default case for the OS switch statement, the error message contains '$this action'. Consider removing '$' to make it read 'this action is only released for Darwin, Linux and Windows'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. lib/main.js:229

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The warning on line 229 for the 'rename-to' parameter has extra whitespace between words ('installing a release'). Please reduce the extra spaces for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_O2zKXDgxS3Jc7Jkl

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Skipped PR review on 3ad34c3 because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.

[ellipsis-dev]

Skipped PR review on 6bb82b1 because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on b9af163 in 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 21 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. src/main.ts:3

• Draft comment:
  Good change: importing only escapeRegExp reduces bundle size compared to importing the entire lodash.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. src/main.ts:103

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the input extension is intended to be escaped as a literal string; the new code using escapeRegExp now treats all characters literally.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. src/main.ts:3

• Draft comment:
  Good change: importing just escapeRegExp minimizes the dependency footprint. Ensure no other lodash functions are needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. src/main.ts:103

• Draft comment:
  Updated usage to call escapeRegExp directly. This aligns with the new import and is a concise, best practice approach.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. src/main.ts:68

• Draft comment:
  Typographical Error: In the error message on line 68, "$this action is only released for Darwin, Linux and Windows" appears to have an incorrect '$this' prefix. Consider removing '$' to properly read as "this action is only released...".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. src/main.ts:219

• Draft comment:
  Typographical Formatting Issue: On line 219, the log message has an excessive amount of whitespace between words ("installing a release"). Consider reducing the spacing to a single space for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_rXef0Ybl4ngsSfym

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 253e489 in 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. src/main.ts:103

• Draft comment:
  Good change: using the imported escapeRegExp instead of _.escapeRegExp. Ensure that the input 'extension' is safely handled, as it may be user-provided.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. src/main.ts:103

• Draft comment:
  Using the directly imported escapeRegExp is cleaner than _.escapeRegExp. Ensure that escaping the custom extension input is intended (i.e. users may not need regex meta-character escapes).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. src/main.ts:68

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The error message on line 68 contains '$this action' which seems unintended. Consider revising it to a more natural phrasing, e.g. 'this action', to improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. src/main.ts:219

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be an extra spacing issue in the warning message on line 219, where the text 'installing a release' includes an unusually long gap. It would be clearer with standard spacing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_UAemDd9KcZ70VRiZ

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 17a9ced in 1 minute and 38 seconds

More details

• Looked at 21 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/test.yml:132

• Draft comment:
  Ensure changing from a regex ("\.bz2") to a literal string (".bz2") is intentional. Verify that the file matching logic accepts a literal suffix.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 40% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to confirm their intention, which violates the rules. However, it also points out a specific change from regex to a literal string, which could be a significant change in behavior. The comment could be useful if it suggests checking the file matching logic, but it should not ask for confirmation of intention.

2. .github/workflows/test.yml:252

• Draft comment:
  Confirm that switching from a regex ("\.xz") to a plain string (".xz") is correct for weval. Match logic might depend on regex syntax.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates several rules. First, it asks for verification ("Confirm that...") which is explicitly against the rules. Second, it's speculative ("might depend on..."). Third, without seeing the actual implementation of how the extension parameter is used, we can't make strong claims about whether regex vs plain string matters.
  The change could potentially break the functionality if the extension matching is regex-based. The comment raises a valid technical concern.
  While technically valid, the comment violates our rules by asking for verification and being speculative. We don't have strong evidence that this is actually a problem.
  Delete this comment. It asks for verification and makes speculative claims without strong evidence of an actual issue.

3. .github/workflows/test.yml:132

• Draft comment:
  Ensure '.bz2' is correct. Previously '\.bz2' was used as a regex; confirm that a literal string is now intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates several rules. First, it asks for verification ("confirm that...") which we're told to avoid. Second, it's speculative - it doesn't definitively state there's an issue. Third, without seeing the actual action implementation that uses this extension parameter, we can't be certain whether this change is problematic or not.
  The change could potentially break the artifact download functionality if the extension parameter is indeed used as a regex pattern in the underlying implementation.
  However, we don't have strong evidence that this is incorrect - we can't see the action's implementation, and the fact that a similar change was made to another extension parameter (.xz) suggests this might be an intentional standardization.
  The comment should be deleted as it violates our rules by asking for verification and being speculative, without providing strong evidence of an actual issue.

4. .github/workflows/test.yml:252

• Draft comment:
  Ensure '.xz' is correct. Previously '\.xz' was used as a regex; confirm that a literal string is now intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

Workflow ID: wflow_LWSMzJbEKiExoWlI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 084cce9 in 47 seconds

More details

• Looked at 26 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 76 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. lib/main.js:3

• Draft comment:
  Using an alias 'lo' for lodash may reduce readability. Consider using a more conventional alias (e.g. '_' or directly importing escapeRegExp for performance benefits).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. package.json:27

• Draft comment:
  Removal of 'mkdirp-promise' dependency is acceptable if unused; ensure no external components rely on it.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. lib/main.js:3

• Draft comment:
  Prefer direct destructuring import from 'lodash' (e.g. import { escapeRegExp } from 'lodash') for clarity and potential tree shaking.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. package.json:27

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'mkdirp-promise' dependency; ensure it’s not required elsewhere in the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. lib/main.js:58

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The error message on line 58 says "$this action". It would be clearer without the '$' – simply 'this action' would be better.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. lib/main.js:230

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The warning string on line 230 has extra spaces between words. Please remove the extra spaces to improve readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_MCr0zeLZkRZtcxY5

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on a4056b9 in 53 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. package.json:18

• Draft comment:
  Ensure @actions/core removal is intentional; verify it's not used in the code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the removal of @actions/core is intentional and to verify that it's not used in the code. This is a request for confirmation and verification, which violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or to double-check things. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

2. package.json:17

• Draft comment:
  Verify that '@actions/core' is no longer used before removal.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify something, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written.

Workflow ID: wflow_BEmb8ZBbWzSrzNrQ

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Skipped PR review on 8b55287 because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.