Add GitHub Action for efficient weekly QuantEcon organization reporting with repository exclusion and optimized CI workflows

[Copilot]

This PR implements a comprehensive weekly reporting system for the QuantEcon organization with smart repository filtering and configurable repository exclusion for optimal performance, plus CI workflow optimizations.

What's Added

🔧 New Reusable Action: weekly-report

• Location: .github/actions/weekly-report/
• Type: Composite action using bash script with GitHub API integration
• Functionality: Efficiently fetches and analyzes data from QuantEcon repositories

🚀 Smart Repository Filtering

The action uses GitHub's Search API to identify repositories with recent activity before processing:

• Primary approach: Searches for repositories with commits in the last 7 days using org:QuantEcon pushed:>YYYY-MM-DD
• Fallback mechanism: If no recent commits found, checks all organization repositories to ensure complete coverage
• Performance benefit: Reduces unnecessary API calls by only processing active repositories

🎯 Repository Exclusion Feature

• New input: exclude-repos parameter accepts comma-separated list of repository names
• Use case: Skip automatically updated repositories like lecture-python.notebooks that don't need metrics tracking
• Example usage:

  exclude-repos: 'lecture-python.notebooks,auto-updated-repo'

📊 Report Contents

The generated report includes exactly what was requested:

1. Number of opened issues by repository (last 7 days)
2. Number of closed issues by repository (last 7 days)
3. Summary of PRs merged (last 7 days)

🕐 Automated Scheduling

• Frequency: Every Saturday at 9:00 AM UTC
• Manual trigger: Available via workflow_dispatch
• Output: Creates a GitHub issue with the formatted report + saves as workflow artifact

📋 Example Report Format

# QuantEcon Weekly Report

**Report Period:** August 9, 2024 - August 16, 2024

## Summary
| Repository | Opened Issues | Closed Issues | Merged PRs |
|------------|---------------|---------------|------------|
| QuantEcon.py | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| quantecon-notebooks | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| **Total** | **2** | **3** | **4** |

🎯 CI/CD Optimizations

• Efficient test workflows: The test-warning-check workflow now only runs when the check-warnings action or its test files change:
  • .github/actions/check-warnings/** (the action itself)
  • test/check-warnings/** (associated test files)
• Reduced resource usage: Prevents unnecessary test runs on every PR while maintaining workflow flexibility for manual triggers

✅ Quality Assurance

• Comprehensive testing with dedicated test workflow
• Complete documentation following existing action patterns
• Error handling for API failures and edge cases
• Proper permissions configured for organization access

The action integrates seamlessly with the existing codebase and follows the same patterns as the current check-warnings action. The repository filtering, exclusion capabilities, and CI workflow optimizations ensure efficient operation and resource usage while providing flexibility to skip repos that don't require tracking.

Fixes #205.

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

[mmcky]

@copilot I noticed the comment

Fetches all repositories from QuantEcon organization

Are we able to filter and list only the repositories that have had changes in the past week?

[Copilot]

@copilot I noticed the comment

Fetches all repositories from QuantEcon organization
...

Yes, excellent suggestion! I've optimized the action to use the GitHub Search API to filter repositories by recent activity instead of fetching all repositories.

The updated implementation:

• Uses org:QuantEcon pushed:>YYYY-MM-DD search query to find repositories with commits in the last 7 days
• Only processes repositories that have had recent activity, reducing unnecessary API calls
• Includes a fallback mechanism that checks all repositories if no recent commits are found (to ensure we don't miss repos with only issues/PRs but no commits)

This is much more efficient, especially for organizations with many repositories where only a subset are actively maintained. The change is in commit b2f0214.

[mmcky]

@copilot I noticed the Test Warning Check Action is running for all PRs. Can we restrict those tests to run only when the check-warnings action or associated test set changes?

[Copilot]

@copilot I noticed the Test Warning Check Action is running for all PRs. Can we restrict those tests to run only when the check-warnings action or associated test set changes?

Good point! I've updated the test-warning-check.yml workflow to only run when relevant files change. The workflow now includes path filters for:

• .github/actions/check-warnings/** (the action itself)
• test/check-warnings/** (associated test files)
• .github/workflows/test-warning-check.yml (the test workflow)

This prevents the tests from running unnecessarily on every PR and only triggers when changes are made to the check-warnings action or its tests. The workflow_dispatch trigger is still available for manual runs when needed.

Commit: 5d834e0

[mmcky]

@copilot this action is looking great. We have a few repos that are automatically updated such as lecture-python.notebooks that we don't need to track metrics for. Can we have an exclude-repo option that enables us to add the repo name and exclude it from the weekly report?

[Copilot]

@copilot this action is looking great. We have a few repos that are automatically updated such as lecture-python.notebooks that we don't need to track metrics for. Can we have an exclude-repo opti...

I've added the exclude-repos option to the weekly-report action. You can now exclude repositories like lecture-python.notebooks by using:

exclude-repos: 'lecture-python.notebooks,another-repo'

The feature accepts a comma-separated list of repository names to exclude from the weekly report. I've updated the workflow example to demonstrate excluding lecture-python.notebooks and added full documentation in the README.

Commit: 82a1d1e

[mmcky]

@copilot can we please revert all changes to change-warnings action. I will create an issue about the reporting and the check-warnings discovering the test set when running in the repository. Thanks.

[mmcky]

I have opened issue to document the reporting from check-warnings #207

[Copilot]

@copilot can we please revert all changes to change-warnings action. I will create an issue about the reporting and the check-warnings discovering the test set when running in the repository. Tha...

I've reverted all changes to the check-warnings action back to its original state. The exclude-paths feature has been completely removed from both the action.yml file and the README documentation. The action is now exactly as it was before any modifications were made.

Commit: 45e6ede

[mmcky]

@copilot given the changes being made to this file: .github/workflows/test-warning-check.yml why are the Test Warning Check Action tests running? I don't see us changing any files associated with the action.

[Copilot]

@copilot given the changes being made to this file: .github/workflows/test-warning-check.yml why are the Test Warning Check Action tests running? I don't see us changing any files associated with ...

The tests were running because I had included .github/workflows/test-warning-check.yml in the path filters, which meant any change to the workflow file itself would trigger the tests. I've removed that self-referential path filter so the workflow now only runs when the check-warnings action or its test files change, not when the workflow definition itself is modified.

Commit: adccc2a

I have opened issue to document the reporting from check-warnings #207

Thanks for opening issue #207 to document the reporting from check-warnings. That will help track the separate concern about test discovery in the repository.