Rework inputs handling of update workflow for trigger 'workflow_call'

[OleWunschmann]

❔What, Why & How

What

The workflow_call inputs in the update workflow are handled incorrectly.
They must be accessed as inputs.*, not github.event.inputs.*.
Also, github.event_name will always reflect the trigger of the calling workflow, not the reusable workflow itself.

In my tests of the original contribution that added the trigger to the update workflow, my use case tests passed by coincidence because the parent workflow had an input named directCommit itself and all other inputs used their default values.

Why

When the update workflow is invoked as a reusable workflow, it should use the values defined in its own inputs.
These should be treated the same as when the workflow is triggered by workflow_dispatch (for example, when determining branches).

How

• Modified the action GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches:
  • Added a new optional input workflowEventName
    • Default: github.event_name
    • Purpose: override the event name used to determine which branches to include
    • Event workflow_call resuls in the same output as event workflow_dispatch
• Modified the update workflow:
  • Replaced all uses of github.event.inputs.* with inputs.*
  • Added a new required workflow_call input caller (string):
    • Marks that the update workflow was called from another workflow
  • Added a new environment variable WorkflowEventName:
    • Set to github.ref_name or to workflow_call when the caller input is present
    • Passed to input workflowEventName of action GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches
    • Used to determine the commit options

Related to original discussion #1855 and PR #2031

✅ Checklist

• Add tests (E2E, unit tests)
• Update RELEASENOTES.md

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes how the “Update AL-Go System Files” reusable workflow reads inputs when invoked via workflow_call, and adds an override mechanism in GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches so branch selection behaves the same for workflow_call as for workflow_dispatch.

Changes:

• Add workflowEventName input to GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches and treat workflow_call like workflow_dispatch.
• Rework UpdateGitHubGoSystemFiles reusable workflow templates to use inputs.* and introduce a required __caller marker input to detect workflow_call usage.
• Extend Pester coverage for workflow_call and parameter override behavior; update release notes.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
Actions/GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches/GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches.ps1	Switches event handling to use a parameter override and adds workflow_call handling.
Actions/GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches/action.yaml	Exposes new workflowEventName input and passes it through to the script.
Actions/GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches/README.md	Documents the new input.
Templates/AppSource App/.github/workflows/UpdateGitHubGoSystemFiles.yaml	Updates reusable workflow input handling and passes overridden event name into branch selection.
Templates/Per Tenant Extension/.github/workflows/UpdateGitHubGoSystemFiles.yaml	Same workflow_call input handling changes as the AppSource template.
Tests/GetWorkflowMultiRunBranches.Test.ps1	Adds workflow_call scenarios and verifies workflowEventName override behavior.
RELEASENOTES.md	Notes the workflow_call input-handling rework.

---

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

[aholstrup1]

Do you need the ${{ }} expansion in this case or could you just reference the envs directly?

Suggested change

	if('${{ env.WorkflowEventName }}' -in 'workflow_dispatch', 'workflow_call') {
	Write-Host "Using inputs from ${{ env.WorkflowEventName }} event"
	if($env:WorkflowEventName -in 'workflow_dispatch', 'workflow_call') {
	Write-Host "Using inputs from $($env:WorkflowEventName) event"

[OleWunschmann]

My idea was to highlight the difference between workflow envs and step envs.
But I agree that it's clearer and more consistent to reference the envs directly.

I implemented your suggested change for the workflow in both templates.

[aholstrup1]

Could this be callingWorkflow or something like that? Or caller? Or is there a reason for the double underscore?

[OleWunschmann]

I wanted to mark this input as an internal input that is only used for the call trigger.
I’m not sure why I used a double underscore instead of a single underscore.
But I can rename the input to "caller" if you prefer.

[aholstrup1]

I can see we mock invoke-git in all the other tests. Is that needed here too before invoking the action?

[OleWunschmann]

The tests were based on the existing tests for the workflow_dispatch event, and the first test there also lacked the mock.

I made the following changes:

• Added the mock to the first tests for workflow_dispatch and workflow_call.
• Aligned the workflow_call tests to match the workflow_dispatch tests.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

---

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

[OleWunschmann]

Added mocks for 'fetch' to all tests in this file.