Skip to content

ci(workflow-world): build, type-check, and unit-test on PRs - #5884

Open
eersnington wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/workflow-world-checks
Open

eersnington wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/workflow-world-checks

Conversation

@eersnington

@eersnington eersnington commented Oct 17, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Check workflow-world on #5880

@railway-app

railway-app Bot commented Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This PR was not deployed automatically as @eersnington does not have access to the Railway project.

In order to get automatic PR deploys, please add @eersnington to your workspace on Railway.

@claude

claude Bot commented Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review: ci(workflow-world)

Small, focused CI change. It looks correct.

  • Verified @rivet-dev/workflow-world exists at integrations/workflow-world and is covered by pnpm-workspace.yaml. Its build, check-types and test:unit scripts match what the workflow calls.
  • The path trigger integrations/workflow-world/** is correct. Adding the package as a second --filter on the turbo build and type-check steps is fine.

Minor notes:

  1. Job naming. The steps run inside the RivetKit / Type Check job. Failures from workflow-world will show up under that name, so a rename or a short comment would help. A separate job would be cleaner if the unit tests grow, but it isn't needed now.
  2. Path trigger gaps. The workflow only triggers on the listed paths. If workflow-world depends on packages outside them (e.g. shared engine/sdks/typescript/**, which is already listed), it's covered. Changes to pnpm-lock.yaml or the root config would not trigger it, but that was already true for the other jobs.
  3. Test scope. Only test:unit runs. test:integration and test:conformance are skipped. That's reasonable if they need real infrastructure, but a follow-up could run them in a separate job.
  4. Stacking. The PR is stacked on feat(workflow-world): implement the Workflow SDK 5 World contract (spec 8) #5880, so make sure it merges after that.

No security or performance concerns. LGTM.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant