Update GitHub Actions workflow to trigger on all branches for pushes …

[paul-phan]

…and pull requests. Update submodule reference in pilot template.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated workflow to run lint and type checks on all branches and pull requests.
  • Updated subproject reference for improved consistency.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The GitHub Actions workflow configuration was updated to trigger on all branches for both push and pull request events, instead of being restricted to the main branch. Additionally, the subproject reference for templates/pilot was updated to a newer commit.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
.github/workflows/check.yml	Modified workflow triggers to run on all branches for push and pull requests.
templates/pilot	Updated subproject reference to a newer commit.

Poem

A workflow now runs near and far,
On every branch, wherever you are.
The pilot template’s flown ahead,
With fresher code now in its stead.
Hops and checks, commits anew—
This rabbit’s proud of what you do!
🐇✨

---

🪧 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.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • 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 explain this code block.
  • @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 explain its main purpose.
  • @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.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/workflows/check.yml (1)

5-8: Confirm need for unconditional-trigger; may double execution & burn credits

Now that push and pull_request are unfiltered, a typical feature branch pushed inside the main repo will trigger two full runs:

1. push (for every commit)
2. pull_request (for the same sha once the PR is open)

With the current concurrency key (${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }}) these two runs have different group values (refs/heads/feature-x vs refs/pull/123/merge), so they will not cancel each other. Expect longer queues and higher CI cost.

If the duplication isn’t intentional, tighten one of the triggers (e.g. keep push but restrict pull_request to types: [opened, synchronize, reopened]), or deduplicate via a broader concurrency group + cancel-in-progress: true:

10   concurrency:
-11     group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }}
+11     group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }}
+12     cancel-in-progress: true

Please verify the desired behaviour before merging.

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3f2dad3 and 5083da7.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/check.yml (1 hunks)
• templates/pilot (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

templates/pilot (1)

1-1: No submodule found for templates/pilot
It looks like templates/pilot is not configured as a Git submodule (no entry in .gitmodules and no .git folder inside), so there’s no “bump” to verify. You can safely ignore the original submodule-bump checks.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.