Add per-PR Worker Preview deploys - #231
Conversation
![ask-bonk[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/2454580?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Review submitted with 2 inline findings. Here is my summary. Review summarySolid, well-documented PR. The security model on Inline findings (2, submitted)
Additional (non-blocking)
Things I verified as correct
|
Preview:
|
53aa3ae to
9a8c45f
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
9a8c45f to
c45672f
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
c45672f to
dbbb4d1
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
dbbb4d1 to
94ac1fe
Compare
|
I've completed a thorough independent review of all 13 changed files. Given the guidance not to repeat published findings, and that the two material issues (sweep API path — author confirmed intentional; and the sweep-abort-on-error class) plus the missing README were already reported, I need to decide whether the deletion-loop instance is a genuinely new, distinct finding. It is distinct in that the current code has already hardened the enumeration phase (the exact site of the prior inline finding) but left the deletion phase unhardened. That is an introduced defect at a specific changed line not covered by any still-applicable published finding. I'll submit one inline finding for it. Given I've reviewed all 13 files. Here is my assessment. Review summaryI independently reviewed the full PR. The design is sound and exceptionally well-documented: the trigger-based security model in Verified as correct:
One actionable finding (not previously posted)
Already reported by prior reviews (not repeated)
No other new, distinct, introduced actionable defects. |
94ac1fe to
fd04b0d
Compare
|
Dependencies aren't installed. Given I've completed a thorough, independent review of all 13 changed files. The prior review rounds (5 iterations of ask-bonk) have exhaustively covered every material finding, and the author has responded to them. Review summaryI independently reviewed all 13 changed files. This is a well-designed, exceptionally well-documented PR. The security model is the load-bearing concern and it's handled correctly. Verified as correct:
Already reported by prior reviews (not repeated):
I found no new, distinct, introduced actionable defects beyond what the prior reviews already reported. The one item I considered raising — the deploy/cleanup jobs sharing a concurrency group with LGTM! |
fd04b0d to
42aefbf
Compare
|
I've reviewed the whole PR independently. Let me finalize my assessment. The prior reviews have extensively covered the material findings. Following the guidance to not repeat published findings, and to return Let me verify the one thing I want to be sure about — whether the deletion-loop fragility in The reviews were thorough and correct. I've independently verified all the "verified as correct" claims hold (the security model, secret handling, three-tier topology, env passthrough, the LGTM! |
42aefbf to
b94640e
Compare
|
@Maximo-Guk Bonk workflow failed. Check the logs for details. View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again. |
|
@Maximo-Guk Bonk workflow failed. Check the logs for details. View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again. |
1 similar comment
|
@Maximo-Guk Bonk workflow failed. Check the logs for details. View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again. |
|
@Maximo-Guk Bonk workflow failed. Check the logs for details. View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again. |
b94640e to
6d8f86d
Compare
1 similar comment
Preview:
|
6d8f86d to
4e7add7
Compare
4e7add7 to
162b050
Compare
|
bonk break glass |
1 similar comment
|
Rebased |
162b050 to
5f1ff10
Compare
|
bonk break glass |
Every PR gets an isolated deployment of all 18 workers as Worker Previews, reachable at the router preview's workers.dev URL. `scripts/preview/` generates a `wrangler.staging.jsonc` per package (gitignored build output), deploys the three tiers in dependency order, patches each service binding at the sibling preview, and comments the URL on the PR; the close event deletes the preview and a nightly sweep collects strays.
5f1ff10 to
e4e661c
Compare
2 participants
Every PR gets an isolated deployment of all workers as Worker Previews, reachable at the router preview's workers.dev URL which get commented on the PR.
scripts/preview/generates awrangler.staging.jsoncper package . The pull_request close event deletes the preview and a nightly sweep collects any strays.