read min coverage from secrets instead of hardcoded value

[0xDEnYO]

Which Jira task belongs to this PR?

Why did I implement it this way?

Checklist before requesting a review

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• This pull request is as small as possible and only tackles one problem
• I have added tests that cover the functionality / test the bug
• I have updated any required documentation

Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)

• I have checked that any arbitrary calls to external contracts are validated and or restricted
• I have checked that any privileged calls (i.e. storage modifications) are validated and or restricted
• I have ensured that any new contracts have had AT A MINIMUM 1 preliminary audit conducted on by <company/auditor>

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the workflow file .github/workflows/enforceTestCoverage.yml to replace the hardcoded minimum test coverage threshold of 74% with a dynamic reference to a secret variable ${{ secrets.MIN_TEST_COVERAGE }}. This change enhances flexibility in managing the coverage requirement. Additionally, the commit hash for the lib/openzeppelin-contracts directory has been updated to a new version, reflecting an upgrade without further code modifications. The URL for the submodule in the .gitmodules file has also been altered to change the casing of the organization name.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
.github/workflows/enforceTestCoverage.yml	Updated minimum test coverage from hardcoded 74% to dynamic ${{ secrets.MIN_TEST_COVERAGE }}; comments updated.
.gitmodules	Changed submodule URL from https://github.com/openzeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts to https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts.
lib/openzeppelin-contracts	Updated subproject commit hash from e50c24f5839d... to dc44c9f1a4c3... for OpenZeppelin contracts.

Possibly related PRs

• adds Github action that enforces Test Coverage above min threshold #730: Introduces a GitHub action that enforces a minimum test coverage threshold, related to the workflow changes in this PR.
• bump versions in git actions as suggested by dependabot #816: Updates the actions/setup-node version in the same workflow file, connecting it to the current PR's modifications.
• bump version in git actions #848: Also updates the actions/setup-node version in the workflow file, further linking it to the changes made in the main PR.

Suggested reviewers

• ezynda3

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[lifi-action-bot]

Test Coverage Report

Line Coverage: 76.20% (1685 / 2211 lines)
Function Coverage: 82.94% ( 355 / 428 functions)
Branch Coverage: 35.67% ( 193 / 541 branches)
Test coverage (76.20%) is above min threshold (76%). Check passed.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

.github/workflows/enforceTestCoverage.yml (1)

Line range hint 1-150: Consider additional security hardening

While the workflow follows good security practices, consider these additional security improvements:

1. Add GITHUB_TOKEN instead of using PAT for PR comments
2. Add permissions: write-all to the job to explicitly declare all required permissions

Here's how to implement these changes:

    permissions:
-     pull-requests: write
-     contents: read
+     contents: read  # for actions/checkout
+     pull-requests: write  # for PR comments
+     security-events: write  # if you plan to upload results to GitHub Security tab

      - name: Comment with Coverage Summary in PR
        uses: mshick/[email protected]
        with:
-         repo-token: ${{ secrets.GIT_ACTIONS_BOT_PAT_CLASSIC }}
+         repo-token: ${{ github.token }}

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c2c412f and 29c7f74.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/enforceTestCoverage.yml (1 hunks)
• lib/openzeppelin-contracts (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• lib/openzeppelin-contracts

🔇 Additional comments (1)

.github/workflows/enforceTestCoverage.yml (1)

27-27: LGTM! Good practice using secrets for configuration.

The addition of MIN_TEST_COVERAGE as a secret environment variable is a good practice, allowing for flexible configuration without exposing the value in the codebase.