[Deployment] Small fix to the staging script to ensure upstream is set

[gmechali]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @gmechali, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a small but significant fix to the staging script, primarily focusing on improving the robustness and user guidance during the deployment process. It refines how shell commands are executed by allowing more flexible error handling and specifically addresses potential issues with pushing Git tags to the upstream remote, ensuring users are well-informed if their remote configuration is incomplete. These changes aim to streamline the staging build trigger and provide a better developer experience.

Highlights

• Enhanced Command Execution: The run_command utility function now includes a check parameter, allowing callers to optionally suppress automatic sys.exit on subprocess.CalledProcessError and handle the exception directly.
• Git Remote Target Change: The script has been updated to push staging tags to the upstream Git remote instead of origin.
• Improved Error Handling for Git Push: A try-except block has been added around the git push upstream command to catch failures and provide clear, actionable instructions to the user on how to configure the upstream remote if it's missing.
• Updated Build Status Link: The URL provided for viewing the build status has been revised to a new link.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request improves the staging script by ensuring the upstream git remote is used and providing a much better error message if it's not configured. The changes are logical and directly address the goal of the PR. I have one suggestion to improve the security of the script by avoiding shell=True in subprocess calls, which is a general best practice.

[gemini-code-assist]

Using shell=True with subprocess can introduce a security risk of command injection if the command string is crafted from external input. While the inputs in this script appear to be controlled, it's a security best practice to avoid shell=True. You can achieve this by passing command arguments as a list. The shlex.split() function can be used to safely parse the command string. This also allows removing the # noqa: S602 suppressions.

I've included import shlex inside the function for a self-contained suggestion, but it would be best to move it to the top of the file with other imports.

Suggested change

	def run_command(cmd: str, *, capture: bool = True, check: bool = True) -> str | int:
	try:
	if capture:
	return subprocess.check_output(cmd, shell=True).decode().strip() # noqa: S602
	return subprocess.check_call(cmd, shell=True) # noqa: S602
	except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e:
	if not check:
	raise e
	print(f"Error running command: {cmd}")
	sys.exit(e.returncode)
	def run_command(cmd: str, *, capture: bool = True, check: bool = True) -> str | int:
	import shlex
	try:
	cmd_args = shlex.split(cmd)
	if capture:
	return subprocess.check_output(cmd_args).decode().strip()
	return subprocess.check_call(cmd_args)
	except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e:
	if not check:
	raise e
	print(f"Error running command: {cmd}")
	sys.exit(e.returncode)