chore(verifier): extract build into a separate step

[rimrakhimov]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores

  • Enhanced the automated workflow by introducing a dedicated build process to confirm successful compilation before proceeding.

• Tests

  • Updated the testing sequence so that subsequent validation steps now execute only after a successful build, ensuring a more reliable verification process.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new Build step within the test job of the GitHub Actions workflow for the smart contract verifier. This step executes a Cargo build command with specified flags, and its success now determines the execution of subsequent steps, such as those for unit tests, doc tests, and integration tests. The workflow’s conditional logic has been modified to depend on the outcome of the Build step instead of the previous conditions that allowed execution irrespective of earlier outcomes. Other jobs in the workflow—namely lint, docker, and push-swagger—remain unchanged.

Poem

I'm the clever code rabbit, on a digital spree,
Hopping through workflows as nimble as can be.
A fresh "Build" step appears with a clever command,
Guiding tests like a merry, well-planned band.
Let’s hop through each check with a whisker of delight—
Code and bunnies dancing, making everything right! 🐰

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 63d6ee0 and 2914790.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/smart-contract-verifier.yml (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• .github/workflows/smart-contract-verifier.yml

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Unit, doc and integration tests

---

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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/workflows/t_build_tests.yml (1)

10-21: Job Naming Inconsistency:
The job is currently named lint even though its steps (checkout, setup, build) are focused on building the project. For clarity—especially since this workflow is invoked as a build job in another workflow—it may be beneficial to rename this job (e.g., to build).

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ac9ee4e and 028b22c.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/smart-contract-verifier.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/workflows/t_build_tests.yml (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Checkout and build / lint

🔇 Additional comments (5)

.github/workflows/t_build_tests.yml (2)

1-9: Workflow Input Configuration:
The workflow correctly uses the workflow_call trigger and defines a required working-directory input as a string. This configuration is well-structured and supports reusability.

---

22-24: Build Step Verification:
The build step uses a robust Cargo command with appropriate flags and leverages the working-directory input effectively. The use of RUST_BACKTRACE=1 enhances error reporting. This implementation looks solid.

.github/workflows/smart-contract-verifier.yml (3)

26-31: New Build Job Integration:
The new build job correctly calls the reusable workflow (t_build_tests.yml) and passes the working-directory input (smart-contract-verifier). This integration clearly separates the build process from later test execution and enhances modularity.

---

32-49: Test Job Dependency and Structure:
By adding needs: - build to the test job, the workflow now enforces that tests only run after a successful build. The removal of redundant checkout and setup steps in the test job simplifies maintenance and reduces duplicate processing.

---

50-80: Other Jobs Verification:
The remaining jobs (lint, docker, and push-swagger) continue to operate as expected. The docker job’s dependency on both test and lint ensures that container build and push only proceed if earlier steps succeed. No additional changes are necessary.

[sevenzing]

LGTM