Fixed auto assign workflow

[noman2002]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Issue Number:

Fixes #

Snapshots/Videos:

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Summary

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

Checklist

CodeRabbit AI Review

• I have reviewed and addressed all critical issues flagged by CodeRabbit AI
• I have implemented or provided justification for each non-critical suggestion
• I have documented my reasoning in the PR comments where CodeRabbit AI suggestions were not implemented

Test Coverage

• I have written tests for all new changes/features
• I have verified that test coverage meets or exceeds 95%
• I have run the test suite locally and all tests pass

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • External contributors can now use assignment commands on issues.

[keploy]

No significant changes currently retry

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The auto-assign workflow's issue-comment handling is modified to remove external contributor filtering. The access check now only skips bots, allowing external users to execute /assign and /unassign commands. The related log message is simplified accordingly.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Workflow access filtering .github/workflows/auto-assign.yml	Removed external contributor (association NONE) check from issue-comment access control; now only filters bots, enabling external contributors to use /assign and /unassign commands

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Single-file change with straightforward conditional logic removal
• No complex interdependencies or side effects

Possibly related PRs

• Added auto assign workflow #3719: Directly modifies the same workflow file and issue-comment handling logic that distinguishes between bots and external contributor filtering.

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The PR description is entirely templated with no actual content filled in; all sections contain only placeholder comments and empty fields without specific information about the changes.	Complete the PR description by filling in all required sections: change type, issue number, summary of motivation, whether it introduces breaking changes, and confirmation of the contributing guide.
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'Fixed auto assign workflow' is vague and does not clearly specify what issue was fixed or what aspect of the workflow was corrected.	Make the title more specific by describing the actual fix, e.g., 'Allow external contributors to use auto-assign commands' or 'Remove external-contributor check from auto-assign workflow'.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b0f8e0b and 700ad96.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/auto-assign.yml (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: VanshikaSabharwal
Repo: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-08-26T07:48:30.202Z
Learning: The CodeRabbit approval workflow in talawa-api has known issues where the validation check fails even when CodeRabbit has approved the PR. This is documented in GitHub issues #2789 and #3950. The workflow failure is due to validation script problems, not actual PR issues.

Learnt from: iamanishx
Repo: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api PR: 3174
File: src/graphql/types/Mutation/updateChatMessage.ts:124-141
Timestamp: 2025-02-10T10:03:45.272Z
Learning: When reviewing test-focused PRs in talawa-api, suggestions should be limited to test implementation aspects unless the changes directly impact test coverage. Modifications to existing business logic should be handled in separate PRs to maintain clear scope boundaries.

Learnt from: JaiPannu-IITI
Repo: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-02T10:53:19.044Z
Learning: The CodeRabbit approval test only passes when the check is triggered by the PR workflow for the specific commit SHA (head). Using 'coderabbitai full review' after PR workflow for a specific head has failed will only approve the PR but won't change previous test results. If the head is changed while the last head was being examined, the approval applies to the last head that was reviewed, not the latest version.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

.github/workflows/auto-assign.yml (3)

28-32: Clarify the intent of removing external contributor filtering.

Line 28-32 now filters only bots, removing the previous check that excluded external contributors (non-org members). This is a significant policy change that allows external users to execute /assign and /unassign commands.

Please confirm:

1. Is this intentional? Should external contributors be able to assign themselves to org issues?
2. Are there permission checks elsewhere (e.g., at the GitHub org/repo level) that prevent actual assignment even if the workflow allows it?
3. Does this align with your org's access control policies?

---

49-79: Error handling and fallback patterns are well-designed.

The workflow includes comprehensive error handling:

• Fallback comments when operations fail
• Graceful degradation with core.setFailed() and error notifications
• Proper logging for debugging

This reduces user confusion and provides useful feedback on failures.

Also applies to: 166-200

---

138-153: Race condition is well-documented with acknowledged trade-offs.

The known race condition between the org-wide assignment count check and the actual assignment is clearly documented with considered mitigation options. The current approach (Option 1: accept transient violations) is reasonable for simplicity, though transient limit violations are possible during concurrent workflow executions.

Confirm that the small transient violations (where total assigned momentarily exceeds 2) are acceptable for your org's use case, or whether a more stringent approach (e.g., retry/backoff via Option 3) is needed.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
   1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
   1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
   2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
   3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

1. comments in this PR or
2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make