[ump45nose]

Dialects: none

What

Migrates the dialect labeler off pull_request_target, which ASF infra is disabling and GitHub will block by default on 2 December 2026.

• Add a permissionless pull_request signal workflow (opened / edited / reopened / synchronize).
• Run the existing dialect labeler from the default branch on that workflow's workflow_run requested event.
• Look up the current open pull request(s) for the signal's head repository and branch instead of trusting pull request code or an artifact.
• Leave the issues and issue_comment paths unchanged.

edited is included so a title or Dialects: line update still applies labels, matching the current behavior. The requested event fires even while a first-time contributor's checks wait for approval.

This follows the current approach in apache/datafusion#26683 rather than uploading a pull request number artifact: that pull request moved to a signal plus an API lookup, which avoids treating PR-produced data as input.

The new pull request path takes effect after this change is on the default branch. Until then, the existing pull_request_target workflow on main continues to label pull requests.

Fixes #2818

Tests

• node --check on both labeler scripts
• Mocked Node checks for: labeling from an explicit pull object, the unanswered-PR prompt, the unchanged issue_comment path, and pull_requests_of_run.js
• No Rust changes, so cargo test / fmt / clippy were not rerun

AI assistance

Prepared with AI assistance. I reviewed the workflow change, the script updates, and the referenced DataFusion pattern before opening this PR.

[LucaCappelletti94]

You should give every issues and issue_comment run its own group.

As written, all comments on one pull request share <repo>-<number>-issue_comment-labeler, so with cancel-in-progress: true a second comment arriving while the first run is still working cancels it, and the dialects the first comment declared are never added.

main has no concurrency block, so this drops labels that are applied today, contrary to the "unchanged" comment above it.

Suggested change

	group: ${{ github.repository }}-${{ github.event.workflow_run.head_repository.full_name || github.event.issue.number }}-${{ github.event.workflow_run.head_branch || github.event_name }}-${{ github.workflow }}
	group: ${{ github.repository }}-${{ github.event_name == 'workflow_run' && format('{0}-{1}', github.event.workflow_run.head_repository.full_name, github.event.workflow_run.head_branch) || github.run_id }}-${{ github.workflow }}

[ump45nose]

Thanks @LucaCappelletti94 — that cancellation was a real regression against main.

Pushed 17bc5a5 with your suggested group: workflow_run stays keyed by the head repository and branch, and issues / issue_comment now use github.run_id so a later comment cannot cancel an in-progress labeling run.

(AI-assisted reply.)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 83.20%. Comparing base (bac1468) to head (055de06).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2891   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.20%   83.20%           
=======================================
  Files          42       42           
  Lines       36471    36471           
  Branches    36471    36471           
=======================================
  Hits        30345    30345           
  Misses       2632     2632           
  Partials     3494     3494           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.