[MatthiasBSchaefer]

This workflow acts only as a trigger.
The regression testing for pull requests itself will be performed in a private repository.
This is neccessary to avoid potential security issues and keep the use of commercial tools private.
The workflow is described in https://github.com/modelica/MA-Internal/blob/master/MA-Projects/MAP-LIB/MeetingMinutes/20261020-Monthly/20261029_RegressionTestingCI_Workflow.pdf
As a result, the workflow will approve the pull request or request changes (including links to reports)

[AHaumer]

Since I have no experience with git workflows I'd be glad about reviews from colleagues that have deeper knowledge.
Really a pity that @beutlich refuses to review. Feel free to invite other colleagues for review.

[HansOlsson]

I have tried to look at it based on the GitHub documentation, and to me it seems good with some minor comments:

• It runs for all pull requests, should we limit it to pull requests targeting master and specific maintenance-branches (as the CI cannot run for earlier maintenance levels, right?)
• Regarding hasLabel, there seems to be two completely different styles for checking labels, this is one of them, and it should work.

However, I'm not an expert regarding the security implications (even if seems they are more of an issue for the LTX-machines).
So, either:

• I click "accept" with that caveat
• Since no-one here seems willing to say that they are an expert we hire someone externally to evaluate it

[AnHeuermann]

LGTM!
No obvious unsafe stuff like leaking secrets to a fork PR.

Dependabot is worth a look. Otherwise someone needs to keep actions up to date manually.

[MatthiasBSchaefer]

@AnHeuermann , @HansOlsson
Thanks for your suggestions.
The latest commit includes:

• only testing PRs targeting master or maintainace branches
• trigger workflow also on labeling the PR (with ready_for_ci label)
• full sha for github_script workflow

[casella]

OK, if @AnHeuermann says it's good, I trust him.

[casella]

But that's not enough...

[casella]

We'll sort this out tomorrow during the MAP-Lib meeting.

[JohnLamertonLSL]

Thanks for adding me as a reviewer of this PR. After reviewing the GitHub workflow file in the context of the, the content and structure of the workflow file generally makes sense to me (with the caveat that I'm not sure exactly how to fully validate the script). However, the aspect which concerns me is the visibility of the workflow run, especially from the perspective of a reviewer. This may be due to the fact that I'm new to looking at this issue and I don't have the full background on the aim of this task, but I don't see how I can easily see the result of the CI trigger workflow from this Pull Request.

I expected to be able to see something in the "Checks" tab, which would inform me whether the trigger ran successfully for this PR, but I can only see the checks from the CheckCI.yml file in there. I also looked in the "Actions" tab but this doesn't seem to have workflow runs for this new "CI_ReSim_trigger.yml" only seems to have some older workflow runs in the "CI Resim" section here: https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/actions/workflows/PRTesting.yml

The answer to this may relate to the Jenkins run, but it's unclear to me how this is performing the action of a third reviewer for approval, as mentioned in the documentation?

It may be possible that some tweaks to the documentation would make it clearer how to see the results of this workflow from a given Pull Request, or alternatively I may just require more background information about how this CI works.

[MatthiasBSchaefer]

Thanks for adding me as a reviewer of this PR. After reviewing the GitHub workflow file in the context of the, the content and structure of the workflow file generally makes sense to me (with the caveat that I'm not sure exactly how to fully validate the script). However, the aspect which concerns me is the visibility of the workflow run, especially from the perspective of a reviewer. This may be due to the fact that I'm new to looking at this issue and I don't have the full background on the aim of this task, but I don't see how I can easily see the result of the CI trigger workflow from this Pull Request.

I expected to be able to see something in the "Checks" tab, which would inform me whether the trigger ran successfully for this PR, but I can only see the checks from the CheckCI.yml file in there. I also looked in the "Actions" tab but this doesn't seem to have workflow runs for this new "CI_ReSim_trigger.yml" only seems to have some older workflow runs in the "CI Resim" section here: https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/actions/workflows/PRTesting.yml

The answer to this may relate to the Jenkins run, but it's unclear to me how this is performing the action of a third reviewer for approval, as mentioned in the documentation?

It may be possible that some tweaks to the documentation would make it clearer how to see the results of this workflow from a given Pull Request, or alternatively I may just require more background information about how this CI works.

Thanky for your review !
I added a more detailed explanation of the workflow here:
https://github.com/modelica/MA-Internal/blob/master/MA-Projects/MAP-LIB/MeetingMinutes/20261020-Monthly/20261029_RegressionTestingCI_Workflow.pdf
The workflow will only run, if the workflow-file (yml) it is part of the master branch. So, you can't see any workflow runs in the Action tab.
I tested the workflow on a fork of the MSL: LTX-Shadow#13