[AUTOWORK-206] Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions by oliverguenther · Pull Request #25159 · opf/openproject

oliverguenther · 2026-09-07T05:58:43Z

Replaces actions which were inline YAML references with an STI table to match functionality of conditions, and add stronger type checking, allowing more flexibility for future automations work

https://community.openproject.org/work_packages/AUTOWORK-206

github-actions · 2026-09-07T13:01:02Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./modules/gantt/spec/features/timeline/timeline_dates_spec.rb[1:2:1]
rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:12:4:1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/roles/report_spec.rb[1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/roles/report_spec.rb[1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #25159, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/gantt/spec/features/timeline/timeline_dates_spec.rb[1:2:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:12:4:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/roles/report_spec.rb[1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/roles/report_spec.rb[1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #25159. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #25159 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @oliverguenther to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @oliverguenther, and request a review from @oliverguenther.
On every commit, set @oliverguenther as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-09-08T09:20:50Z

	1 Warning
⚠️	Attention developer & reviewer: migration looks up an index by hardcoded name: db/migrate/20260907113318_convert_custom_actions_to_automations.rb `remove_index ..., name:` and `rename_index` MAY fail when the live name differs from the canonical one (for example, old databases pgloader prefixes MySQL indexes with `idx_<oid>_`; pre-squash databases may still use the original migration name). Please use `Migration::Utils` instead: `require Rails.root.join("db/migrate/migration_utils/utils") class SomeMigration < ActiveRecord::Migration[8.0] include Migration::Utils def up remove_index_on :workflows, "wkfs_role_type_old_status", %w[role_id type_id old_status_id] rename_index_on :workflows, "wkfs_role_type_old_status", "wkfs_role_type_variant_old_status", %w[role_id type_id old_status_id] end end` Those helpers match the given name, or the name with pgloader prefix, then fall back to columns.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

github-actions · 2026-09-08T09:21:56Z

Caution

The provided work package version does not match the core version

Details:

Work package URL: https://community.openproject.org/work_packages/AUTOWORK-206
Work package version: 18.0.0
Core version: 17.9.0

Please make sure that:

The work package version OR your pull request target branch is correct

github-actions · 2026-09-08T09:45:05Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./modules/meeting/spec/features/meeting_notifications_spec.rb[1:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #25159, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/meeting/spec/features/meeting_notifications_spec.rb[1:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #25159. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #25159 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @oliverguenther to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @oliverguenther, and request a review from @oliverguenther.
On every commit, set @oliverguenther as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-09-09T10:19:44Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/projects/creation_wizard/wizard_from_template_flow_spec.rb[1:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #25159, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/projects/creation_wizard/wizard_from_template_flow_spec.rb[1:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #25159. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #25159 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @oliverguenther to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @oliverguenther, and request a review from @oliverguenther.
On every commit, set @oliverguenther as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-09-09T13:42:37Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/details/inplace_editor/version_editor_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #25159, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/details/inplace_editor/version_editor_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #25159. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #25159 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @oliverguenther to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @oliverguenther, and request a review from @oliverguenther.
On every commit, set @oliverguenther as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

dfriquet

I'm still working through this PR (quite dense, honestly), but here are my first UI findings.

dfriquet · 2026-09-21T10:19:18Z

-      errors.add(:actions, :empty) if model.actions.empty?
-      model.actions.each { |action| action.validate(errors) }
+      live_actions = model.actions.reject(&:marked_for_destruction?)
+      errors.add(:actions, :empty) if live_actions.empty?


I18n::MissingTranslationData in Automations#update Showing /home/dev/openproject/app/views/automations/edit.html.erb where line #45 raised: Translation missing. Options considered were: - en.activerecord.attributes.automation.actions - en.attributes.actions - en.activerecord.models.actions

dfriquet · 2026-09-21T15:07:13Z

+  def write_raw_values(new_values)
+    self.options = options.is_a?(Hash) ? options.merge("values" => Array(new_values)) : { "values" => Array(new_values) }
  end


I’ve got mixed feelings about this method.

In the first place, it could make good use of store_attribute:

Suggested change

def write_raw_values(new_values)

self.options = options.is_a?(Hash) ? options.merge("values" => Array(new_values)) : { "values" => Array(new_values) }

end

def write_raw_values(new_values)

write_store_attribute(:options, :values, Array(new_values))

end

As it is only expected to be called by subclasses, it should be protected. I even wonder if the subclasses should be allowed to call write_store_attribute themselves, and remove this method altogether.

dfriquet · 2026-09-29T15:25:09Z

-    automation.actions.reject! { |a| a.key == key }
+    new_action = template.dup
+    new_action.values = values
+    automation.actions << new_action


When an automation is edited, a rejected update still persists newly added actions.

automation.actions << new_action inserts immediately on a persisted parent, but contract.validate runs afterwards with no transaction. So the new action is written to the DB whereas the the update is not successful because of a too long name for example.

dfriquet · 2026-09-29T15:34:14Z

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ See COPYRIGHT and LICENSE files for more details.
 ++#%>

 <% active_section_keys = @automation.actions.map(&:key) %>


actions does not exclude those marked for deletion, so on re-render after a validation error they come back as active 🧟

dfriquet · 2026-09-29T16:11:29Z

This index breaks when an automation configures an action on a custom field and that same custom field is deleted afterwards.

oliverguenther changed the base branch from dev to feat/automations-namespace September 7, 2026 11:29

oliverguenther changed the title ~~Rename CustomAction to Automation and add trigger functionality~~ Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions Sep 7, 2026

oliverguenther changed the title ~~Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions~~ [AUTOWORK-206] Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions Sep 7, 2026

oliverguenther force-pushed the feat/automations-sti-table branch from b3103fc to af72a75 Compare September 7, 2026 12:30

oliverguenther force-pushed the feat/automations-sti-table branch 2 times, most recently from 375f43b to 93c2087 Compare September 8, 2026 09:18

opf deleted a comment from github-actions Bot Sep 8, 2026

oliverguenther force-pushed the feat/automations-sti-table branch from 93c2087 to d303be4 Compare September 8, 2026 09:20

oliverguenther marked this pull request as ready for review September 8, 2026 09:21

oliverguenther added feature needs review labels Sep 8, 2026

oliverguenther added this to the 18.0.x milestone Sep 8, 2026

mrmir added the DO NOT MERGE label Sep 8, 2026

oliverguenther force-pushed the feat/automations-sti-table branch from d303be4 to 217c5ee Compare September 9, 2026 09:50

oliverguenther added 2 commits September 9, 2026 15:18

Move all custom actions into an automations namespace

dea73a7

Use more fitting manual trigger selection

a8cbe56

Update automation actions to be separate STI table

c961300

oliverguenther force-pushed the feat/automations-sti-table branch from 217c5ee to c961300 Compare September 9, 2026 13:20

dfriquet requested changes Sep 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Navigation Menu

[AUTOWORK-206] Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions - #25159

[AUTOWORK-206] Convert automation actions to an STI table like conditions#25159
oliverguenther wants to merge 3 commits into
feat/automations-namespacefrom
feat/automations-sti-table

oliverguenther commented Sep 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet left a comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 21, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 21, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

		@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ See COPYRIGHT and LICENSE files for more details.
		++#%>

		<% active_section_keys = @automation.actions.map(&:key) %>

Conversation

oliverguenther commented Sep 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

dfriquet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfriquet Sep 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

oliverguenther commented Sep 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading