Skip to content

feat(content-extractor): add support for pull_request triggers #89

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

Open
avivkeller wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+8 −0
Open

feat(content-extractor): add support for pull_request triggers #89

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions src/content-extractor.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ export function extractFromEvent(context: typeof github.context): ContentInfo {
if (event === 'issues' && context.payload.action === 'opened') {
content = `${context.payload.issue?.title}\n${context.payload.issue?.body}`
issueNumber = context.payload.issue?.number ?? null
} else if (
(event === 'pull_request' || event === 'pull_request_target') &&
context.payload.action === 'opened'
) {
content = `${context.payload.pull_request?.title}\n${context.payload.pull_request?.body}`
Comment on lines 20 to +26
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this new pull_request/pull_request_target branch, interpolating optional title/body into a template literal will stringify null/undefined (e.g., "...\nnull"), which can pollute moderation input and potentially cause false positives. Consider normalizing with ?? '' (and optionally trimming) so missing fields don't become the literal strings "null"/"undefined".

Suggested change
content = `${context.payload.issue?.title}\n${context.payload.issue?.body}`
issueNumber = context.payload.issue?.number ?? null
} else if (
(event === 'pull_request' || event === 'pull_request_target') &&
context.payload.action === 'opened'
) {
content = `${context.payload.pull_request?.title}\n${context.payload.pull_request?.body}`
const title = context.payload.issue?.title ?? ''
const body = context.payload.issue?.body ?? ''
content = `${title}\n${body}`.trim()
issueNumber = context.payload.issue?.number ?? null
} else if (
(event === 'pull_request' || event === 'pull_request_target') &&
context.payload.action === 'opened'
) {
const title = context.payload.pull_request?.title ?? ''
const body = context.payload.pull_request?.body ?? ''
content = `${title}\n${body}`.trim()

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
issueNumber = context.payload.pull_request?.number ?? null
} else if (
event === 'issue_comment' &&
context.payload.action === 'created'
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -50,6 +56,8 @@ export function shouldProcess(context: typeof github.context): boolean {

return (
(event === 'issues' && context.payload.action === 'opened') ||
((event === 'pull_request' || event === 'pull_request_target') &&
context.payload.action === 'opened') ||
Comment on lines 56 to +60
Copy link

Copilot AI Mar 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

New support for pull_request / pull_request_target events is added here, but there are existing Jest tests for extractFromEvent/shouldProcess and none cover these new event types. Please add tests for both events with action opened (including title/body extraction) to prevent regressions.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
(event === 'issue_comment' && context.payload.action === 'created') ||
(event === 'pull_request_review_comment' &&
context.payload.action === 'created')
Expand Down
Loading