feat: add test-check workflow - #20935

Task created: https://dev.coder.com/tasks/DevelopmentCats/03841278-ea90-4e67-a52f-b4f5045d9883

🧪 Test Coverage Review

✅ No Changes Needed

This PR adds a GitHub Actions workflow configuration file for automated test coverage checking. GitHub Actions workflows are CI/CD infrastructure that don't require unit tests - they're validated through actual execution.

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

🧪 Test Coverage Review

✅ No Changes Needed

This PR adds a new GitHub Actions workflow (.github/workflows/test-check.yaml) that automates test coverage analysis for PRs. This is CI/CD infrastructure code that:

• Triggers on label addition or manual dispatch
• Creates Coder Tasks to analyze PR changes
• Posts automated comments about test coverage

Why no tests are needed:

• CI/CD workflows are self-validating: The workflow will be tested when it runs in production (triggered by labels or manual dispatch)
• Similar pattern exists: This follows the same architecture as doc-check.yaml which doesn't have dedicated tests
• Declarative configuration: GitHub Actions YAML workflows are declarative infrastructure-as-code that GitHub executes
• Integration testing happens naturally: The workflow's effectiveness will be validated through actual usage

Validation approach:

• Test by adding the test-check label to a PR or using manual workflow dispatch
• Verify the Coder Task is created successfully
• Confirm the task analyzes the PR and posts appropriate comments

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

🧪 Test Coverage Review

✅ No Changes Needed

This PR adds a new GitHub Actions workflow file (.github/workflows/test-check.yaml) which is a CI/CD configuration change. The workflow itself is designed to automate test coverage checks by creating Coder Tasks that analyze PRs.

Reason: CI/CD workflow configuration files don't require unit tests. The workflow will be validated through:

• GitHub Actions workflow syntax validation
• Integration testing when the workflow runs on actual PRs with the "test-check" label
• The workflow's own execution will serve as its functional test

The workflow includes proper error handling, input validation, and clear documentation within the file itself.

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

@david-fraley

@DevelopmentCats For testing, can you spin up a fake branch based off this one where you make some random change to a coder/coder method/function and see what happens? I'd like to see what the recommendation looks like.

In terms of what to change, maybe try getting the triage workflow to make some backend change, and then add this label to it.

🧪 Test Coverage Review

❌ Tests Needed

• coderd/util/strings/strings.go - The new ContainsAny function needs test coverage. This is a utility function with straightforward logic but should include tests for:
  • Empty string input
  • Empty substrings slice
  • No matches found
  • Single match found
  • Multiple matches (should return true on first match)
  • Case sensitivity verification

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

🧪 Test Coverage Review

❌ Tests Needed

• coderd/util/strings/strings.go - The new ContainsAny function needs test coverage

The PR adds a new exported function ContainsAny(s string, substrings []string) bool that checks if a string contains any of the provided substrings. This is a utility function that should have comprehensive test coverage including:

• Empty string input
• Empty substrings list
• Single substring match
• Multiple substrings with matches
• No matches found
• Case sensitivity verification
• Edge cases (empty strings in substring list, etc.)

The existing test file at coderd/util/strings/strings_test.go has thorough test coverage for other functions (JoinWithConjunction, Truncate, UISanitize) using table-driven tests. A similar pattern should be followed for ContainsAny.

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

🧪 Test Coverage Review

❌ Tests Needed

• coderd/util/strings/strings_test.go - The EmptyToNil function was modified to treat whitespace-only strings as nil, but there are currently no tests for this function. Tests should cover:
  • Empty string returns nil
  • Whitespace-only strings (spaces, tabs, newlines) return nil
  • Non-empty strings return pointer to the string
  • Strings with leading/trailing whitespace return nil

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks

🧪 Test Coverage Review

⚠️ Tests Need Updates

• coderd/util/strings/strings_test.go - The test assertions need to be updated to reflect the change from "and" to "or" as the conjunction:
  • Line 16: require.Equal(t, "foo and bar", ...) should be require.Equal(t, "foo or bar", ...)
  • Line 17: require.Equal(t, "foo, bar and baz", ...) should be require.Equal(t, "foo, bar or baz", ...)

This comment was generated by an AI Agent through Coder Tasks