[code-infra] Use vale rules from code-infra package by brijeshb42 · Pull Request #48173 · mui/material-ui (original) (raw)

brijeshb42 added the scope: code-infra

Involves the code-infra product (https://www.notion.so/mui-org/5562c14178aa42af97bc1fa5114000cd).

label

Apr 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was just to check the error reporting. But since the workflow change is in this PR, it only gets read-only token. So vale cant add annotations to the PR.
Once this PR gets merged, annotation will get added inline.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we don't do this, vale traverses the whole directory tree, including node_modules and breaks when it encounters symlinks. Even its glob flag doesnt work.
We could also update this to only consider the changed md files in the PR and not all md files.

run: | if [ "${{ github.event_name }}" = "pull_request" ]; then FILES=$(git diff --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }}..HEAD -- '.md' '.mdx' | paste -sd ',' -) else FILES=$(git ls-files '.md' '.mdx' | paste -sd ',' -) fi echo "files=$FILES" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT echo "version=$(node -p 'require("./package.json").mui.valeVersion')" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this will not automatically update through renovate. So we can either keep it as-is (update manually or through custom renovate manager) or add @vvago/vale as a devDepedency back insted of the current pnpm dlx based usage.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

without flags, it logs warnings as well. So we can pass flags to filter based just on errors similar to what we do in pnpm valelint - vale --filter='.Level==\"error\"'

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR migrates Vale configuration/rules to consume the shared rules shipped from @mui/internal-code-infra, removing the in-repo docs/mui-vale rules bundle and wiring Vale into the main CI workflow.

Changes:

• Point Vale’s .vale.ini to use rules from @mui/internal-code-infra instead of docs/mui-vale.zip.
• Remove the docs/mui-vale rule sources and the dedicated vale-action.yml workflow.
• Add Vale execution to .github/workflows/ci.yml and centralize the Vale CLI version in package.json.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

Files not reviewed (1)

• pnpm-lock.yaml: Language not supported

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment on lines +47 to +56

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The Vale step is added to ci.yml, but this workflow is configured with on.pull_request.paths-ignore: ['docs/**']. As a result, PRs that only touch docs/markdown won’t run this workflow, so Vale won’t run on the changes it’s meant to validate. Consider keeping Vale in a separate workflow that runs on all PRs (or at least on docs/**), or adjusting the CI/CI Check path filters so Vale still executes for docs-only PRs.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mui/internal-code-infra is pinned to a pkg.pr.new preview URL. Those preview artifacts are intended for temporary testing and can become unavailable over time, which would break installs and make builds less reproducible. Please switch this back to a published version/range (e.g. the canary you had before) and only use pkg.pr.new overrides locally or in short-lived test branches.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was there a specific reason to move this from circle to GHA?

Was there a specific reason to move this from circle to GHA?

Both had it actually. Circle has general linting and github has linting with code annotations through the cake action. If we don't need the annotation, we can just keep the circle ci one.

Right, I see. I don't find them particularly useful, but maybe someone on the team?

We can do a team poll to validate if we need it or not. I am assuming it'll help devex team.

Both had it actually. Circle has general linting and github has linting with code annotations

Correct.

I think both are important: It's about the rule that are warning. Rules that are error should break the CI, so easy, only Circle CI, but warnings go silent if they are not shown in the Code diff view as annotations.

This was referenced

Apr 29, 2026

JCQuintas added a commit to JCQuintas/mui-x that referenced this pull request

Apr 30, 2026

JCQuintas added a commit to JCQuintas/mui-x that referenced this pull request

Apr 30, 2026

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})