fix(Meta): Fixing issue with style file coverage, and step data persistence

[rllyy97]

Commit Type

• feature - New functionality
• fix - Bug fix
• refactor - Code restructuring without behavior change
• perf - Performance improvement
• docs - Documentation update
• test - Test-related changes
• chore - Maintenance/tooling

Risk Level

• Low - Minor changes, limited scope
• Medium - Moderate changes, some user impact
• High - Major changes, significant user/system impact

What & Why

• Fixed issue with our style file exclusions.
  • We were only excluding **/styles.ts
  • I added **/*.styles.ts, **/*.styles.tsx, and **/styles.tsx
• Fixed issue with step data persistance
  • The GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY environment variable points to a per-step temporary file, so the "Post coverage comment" step was always reading empty data
  • It is now written to a file in the job's local directory to be read again by the next step

Impact of Change

• Users: N/A
• Developers: Improved test coverage GH actions
• System: N/A

Test Plan

• Unit tests added/updated
• E2E tests added/updated
• Manual testing completed
• Tested in:

// Meta change - not testable

Contributors

@rllyy97

Screenshots/Videos

N/A

[github-actions]

🤖 AI PR Validation Report

PR Review Results

Thank you for your submission! Here's detailed feedback on your PR title and body compliance:

⚠️ PR Title

• Current: fix(Meta): Fixing issue with style file coverage, and step data persistence
• Issue: Title is generally clear but uses a gerund ("Fixing") and is slightly long — prefer concise, present-tense, and specific scope (CI/workflow). Also the scope casing Meta could be meta to follow conventional commit style.
• Recommendation: Use a concise present-tense title that clearly states what changed. Example: fix(meta): exclude additional style files from coverage & persist step data across workflow steps

---

✅ Commit Type

• Properly selected (fix)
• Only one commit type is selected which is correct. No action needed.

---

✅ Risk Level

• The PR is labeled risk:low and the body selects Low. This matches the diff (only workflow changes in .github/workflows/pr-coverage.yml) so the assigned risk is appropriate.

---

✅ What & Why

• Current:
  • Fixed style file exclusions to include **/*.styles.ts, **/*.styles.tsx, and **/styles.tsx.
  • Fixed step data persistence by writing coverage output to a file in the job workspace so the next step can read it.
• Issue: The explanation is clear and adequate.
• Recommendation: None required, though you can optionally add a short note about the expected behavior after this change (e.g., "coverage comment will now surface uncovered/partial files as a PR comment").

---

⚠️ Impact of Change

• Impact field is populated but sparse.
• Recommendation: Expand slightly to make review easier:
  • Users: No user-facing changes expected. (Keep as N/A if truly none.)
  • Developers: CI will now ignore additional style file patterns and the PR coverage comment will be created from ./coverage-comment.md (mention that the coverage comment is now anchored with a hidden marker to allow updates).
  • System: Minor workflow behavior change only (no infra or runtime changes).

---

⚠️ Test Plan

• Assessment: Incomplete/weak. The PR currently has no unit or E2E tests and the Test Plan checkboxes are all unchecked. The body contains a short note (// Meta change - not testable) but this workflow change is testable via the CI run.
• Recommendation: Please update the Test Plan to indicate how you validated the change. Good options:
  • Mark Manual testing completed and include the workflow run link(s) where you verified the new behavior (example: a run that produced the expected ./coverage-comment.md and updated/created the bot comment). OR
  • If you executed the workflow in a branch and validated the comment creation, add that evidence (link to run or run logs). OR
  • If there is a reason it cannot be tested in CI, explain why clearly (e.g., dependencies on secrets not available in PR runs).

Note: Because this is a CI/workflow change, it is important to show at least one successful workflow run demonstrating the new comment behavior or the file-writing behavior.

✅ Contributors

• Contributors section lists @rllyy97. Good — credit is given.

---

✅ Screenshots/Videos

• N/A is appropriate for workflow-only change.

---

Summary Table

Section	Status	Recommendation
Title	⚠️	Use concise present-tense: fix(meta): exclude additional style files from coverage & persist step data across workflow steps
Commit Type	✅	None
Risk Level	✅	Low is appropriate
What & Why	✅	Consider a one-line expected-behavior note
Impact of Change	⚠️	Expand Users/Developers/System bullets slightly
Test Plan	⚠️	Add manual test evidence (workflow run link) or explanation why not testable
Contributors	✅	None
Screenshots/Videos	✅	N/A is fine

---

Final message:
This PR passes the PR title/body policy with minor recommendations. The risk level is correctly set to risk:low given the change is limited to the repository workflow. Please update the PR title to the suggested concise form and improve the Test Plan by adding evidence of a successful workflow run (or a brief explanation why it can't be run). Also consider slightly expanding the Impact section with a short note for reviewers. Once those small updates are made, this PR is ready to merge. Thank you!

---

Last updated: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 21:54:21 GMT

[github-actions]

📊 Coverage Check

No source files changed in this PR.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes two issues with the PR coverage check GitHub Actions workflow: incomplete style file exclusion patterns and step data persistence problems.

Changes:

• Extended style file exclusion patterns to include **/styles.tsx, **/*.styles.ts, and **/*.styles.tsx
• Replaced GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY with a persistent local file (./coverage-comment.md) for data sharing between steps
• Added a hidden HTML comment marker for reliably identifying and updating coverage check comments on PRs