feat: add repo check to re-enable disabled workflows by salman2013 · Pull Request #712 · openedx/repo-tools

salman2013 · 2026-05-26T11:24:02Z

Description:

GitHub can automatically disable workflows (e.g. cron jobs on inactive forked repos). The new EnsureWorkflowsEnabled check detects all non-active workflows in a repo and re-enables them.

See: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/59547
Ticket: #596

How to test

Details can be found here https://github.com/openedx/repo-tools/blob/master/edx_repo_tools/repo_checks/README.rst

Testing results

Testing disabled workflow list output

command

uv run --extra repo_checks repo_checks --dry-run -c EnsureWorkflowsEnabled -r forum

Output on terminal

Verification of output on github

Testing to re-enable workflow

command

uv run --extra repo_checks repo_checks --no-dry-run -c EnsureWorkflowsEnabled -r forum

Verify that all workflows have been re-enabled

GitHub can automatically disable workflows (e.g. cron jobs on inactive forked repos). The new EnsureWorkflowsEnabled check detects all non-active workflows in a repo and re-enables them. See: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/59547 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

openedx-webhooks · 2026-05-26T11:24:09Z

Thanks for the pull request, @salman2013!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/axim-engineering.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
- This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

Dependencies

This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...
Blockers

This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.
Timeline information

This PR must be merged by XX date because ...
Partner information

This is for a course on edx.org.
Supporting documentation
Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
The need for product review
Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

- Replace all_paged_items with a direct API call since list_repo_workflows returns {"total_count": N, "workflows": [...]} not a plain list, causing paged() to loop indefinitely - Print all workflow names alongside the "All workflows are enabled" message Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Adds a new repository check to detect disabled GitHub Actions workflows and re-enable them automatically (helping recover from GitHub auto-disabling workflows due to inactivity, etc.).

Changes:

Introduces EnsureWorkflowsEnabled check to list workflows and flag any non-active ones.
Implements fix() to call the GitHub API to re-enable workflows found disabled.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

irfanuddinahmad

Independent Review — Issues Copilot Missed

I also reviewed Copilot's four inline comments. All are valid:

State filter (comments 1 & 2): confirmed — state != "active" is too broad and will hit deleted/disabled_manually.
Pagination (comment 3): confirmed — only the first page is fetched; the repo already has all_paged_items() at line 42 that should be used here.
Duplicate api.repos.get() calls (comment 4): valid, though this is a pre-existing pattern shared by other checks. Worth a follow-up issue rather than blocking this PR.

Beyond those, a few more things caught my eye:

1. No tests added

The PR adds significant new behaviour but no test coverage. tests/test_repo_checks.py already shows exactly how to mock GhApi with MagicMock. At minimum I'd expect:

check() returns (False, …) when disabled workflows exist
check() returns (True, …) when all workflows are active
fix() calls api.actions.enable_workflow() for each disabled workflow
dry_run() does not call api.actions.enable_workflow()
is_relevant() returns False for security forks and empty repos

2. `disabled_manually` policy should be explicit

The PR description says the goal is to re-enable automatically disabled workflows, but state != "active" silently catches disabled_manually too. Re-enabling a manually-disabled workflow overrides an intentional admin decision. Even if the team decides to include that state, the docstring and the filter should make it explicit.

3. No error handling in `fix()` — partial re-enable risk

If enable_workflow() raises for any workflow (e.g. an unexpected state slips through the filter), the loop aborts and the repo is left in a partially re-enabled state with no indication of which workflows succeeded. Either fix the state filter defensively (which resolves this too) or wrap the call in a try/except that logs the failure and continues to the next workflow.

4. Success message lists every workflow name (minor)

When all workflows are enabled, check() returns every workflow name. For repos with many workflows this produces very verbose output. A count-based summary (e.g. "All 14 workflows are enabled") would be more consistent with other checks.

- Filter only disabled_inactivity and disabled_fork states to avoid re-enabling manually disabled workflows (intentional admin decisions) - Add per_page=100 to avoid missing workflows on large repos - Show count-based success message; include manually disabled count only when non-zero - Wrap enable_workflow() in try/except to continue on failure - Add tests covering check(), fix(), dry_run(), and is_relevant() Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

feanil

One suggestion otherwise, looks good to me.

feanil · 2026-06-04T18:51:21Z

+        )
+
+    def check(self) -> tuple[bool, str]:
+        response = self.api.actions.list_repo_workflows(


Use all_paged_items so we don't miss anything. It's very unlikely that we'll have more than a 100 workflows but not impossible. We should write the code to be resilient, especially since the helper already exists.

feanil · 2026-06-04T18:52:42Z

+                False,
+                f"Some workflows are disabled:\n\t\t" + "\n\t\t".join(names),
+            )
+        manually_disabled = [w for w in response.workflows if w.state == "disabled_manually"]


extract disabled_manually into a name string so we can add comments near it if needed.

- Use all_paged_items-compatible pagination via a wrapper function that extracts .workflows from list_repo_workflows response, since the endpoint returns {total_count, workflows} rather than a flat list - Extract DISABLED_MANUALLY_STATE class constant with explanatory comment - Fix enabled count in message: report "X of Y enabled (Z manually disabled)" instead of incorrectly showing total as enabled count - Update make_workflows_api mock to use side_effect for correct pagination simulation Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

openedx-webhooks added open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U core contributor PR author is a Core Contributor (who may or may not have write access to this repo). labels May 26, 2026

openedx-webhooks added this to Contributions May 26, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Needs Triage in Contributions May 26, 2026

salman2013 closed this May 26, 2026

salman2013 reopened this May 26, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this from Needs Triage to Done in Contributions May 26, 2026

salman2013 marked this pull request as ready for review May 26, 2026 12:00

salman2013 closed this May 26, 2026

salman2013 reopened this May 26, 2026

salman2013 requested review from farhan and irfanuddinahmad June 1, 2026 07:46

irfanuddinahmad requested a review from Copilot June 1, 2026 12:22

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread edx_repo_tools/repo_checks/repo_checks.py Outdated

Comment thread edx_repo_tools/repo_checks/repo_checks.py Outdated

Comment thread edx_repo_tools/repo_checks/repo_checks.py Outdated

Comment thread edx_repo_tools/repo_checks/repo_checks.py

irfanuddinahmad reviewed Jun 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

salman2013 requested a review from irfanuddinahmad June 2, 2026 10:24

feanil reviewed Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

feanil approved these changes Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

feanil merged commit e269ac6 into openedx:master Jun 12, 2026
3 checks passed

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

feat: add repo check to re-enable disabled workflows - #712

feat: add repo check to re-enable disabled workflows#712
feanil merged 4 commits into
openedx:masterfrom
salman2013:salman/repo-check

salman2013 commented May 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

openedx-webhooks commented May 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

irfanuddinahmad left a comment

Uh oh!

feanil left a comment

Uh oh!

feanil Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

feanil Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

salman2013 commented May 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description:

How to test

Testing results

Uh oh!

openedx-webhooks commented May 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

irfanuddinahmad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Independent Review — Issues Copilot Missed

1. No tests added

2. disabled_manually policy should be explicit

3. No error handling in fix() — partial re-enable risk

4. Success message lists every workflow name (minor)

Uh oh!

feanil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

feanil Jun 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

feanil Jun 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

salman2013 commented May 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

openedx-webhooks commented May 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

2. `disabled_manually` policy should be explicit

3. No error handling in `fix()` — partial re-enable risk