feat: add base_branch input to specify source branch for new Claude branches #72

ashwin-ant · 2025-05-28T00:13:19Z

Implements the ability to specify which branch Claude checks out from when creating new branches.

Changes

Add base_branch input parameter to action.yml
Update setupBranch function to use specified base branch
Maintain backward compatibility by defaulting to repository default branch

Usage

Users can now specify a base branch in their workflow:

- uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@main
  with:
    base_branch: "dev"

Closes #62

Generated with Claude Code

…ranches - Add base_branch input parameter to action.yml allowing users to specify which branch to use as source - Update setupBranch function to accept and use the base branch parameter - Defaults to repository default branch if no base branch is specified - Addresses issue #62 for better branch control Co-authored-by: ashwin-ant <[email protected]>

claude · 2025-05-28T00:13:34Z

Claude finished @ashwin-ant's task —— View job

Code Review for PR #72

Reviewing the base_branch input feature implementation.

Tasks:

Read and analyze changed files
Review code quality and implementation
Check for potential bugs or issues
Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Summary

This PR successfully implements the base_branch input feature to allow specifying which branch Claude should use as the source when creating new branches. The implementation is clean, well-structured, and maintains backward compatibility.

✅ Strengths

Clear and intuitive API design: The base_branch input in action.yml:15-17 is well-documented with a clear description
Proper backward compatibility: Falls back to repository default branch when no base_branch is specified (branch.ts:40)
Clean parameter threading: The parameter flows properly from action input → environment variable → function parameter
Consistent logging: Good debug output showing which source branch is being used (branch.ts:74)
Maintains existing functionality: No breaking changes to current behavior

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

action.yml changes ✅

Input definition follows existing patterns
Proper placement in the inputs section
Clear description for users

prepare.ts changes ✅

Minimal, targeted change to pass the base branch parameter
Follows existing pattern for environment variable access

branch.ts changes ✅

Clean implementation of the base branch logic
Good variable naming (sourceBranch)
Proper error handling preserved
Logging clearly indicates which branch is being used as source

🎯 Architecture & Design

The design is solid and follows the existing codebase patterns:

Input flows: action.yml → environment variable → prepare.ts → setupBranch function
Maintains the same branch creation logic for both issues and closed/merged PRs
Only affects new branch creation, not existing PR checkout behavior

⚠️ Minor Considerations

Input validation: Consider validating that the specified base_branch exists before attempting to use it. Currently, if a non-existent branch is specified, the error will occur during git.getRef() call (branch.ts:87-91), which provides a reasonable error message but could be more user-friendly.
Documentation: While the action.yml description is clear, consider adding this feature to any user-facing documentation or examples.

🚀 Testing Considerations

The implementation should be tested with:

Valid base branch (e.g., "dev", "staging")
Invalid/non-existent base branch
No base branch specified (default behavior)
Both issue and PR scenarios

📋 Final Assessment

This is a well-implemented feature that:

✅ Solves the stated problem (issue Ability to Determine the branch that Claude checks out from #62)
✅ Maintains backward compatibility
✅ Follows existing code patterns
✅ Has appropriate error handling
✅ Includes clear logging

The code is ready for merge. The minor input validation suggestion is optional - the current error handling via Git API calls is adequate.

ashwin-ant · 2025-05-28T00:14:15Z

src/github/operations/branch.ts

@@ -34,6 +35,9 @@ export async function setupBranch(
    repo,
  });
  const defaultBranch = repoResponse.data.default_branch;
+


if there's a baseBranch provided let's not even fetch the default branch @claude

Claude finished @ashwin-ant's task —— View job

Optimizing branch setup logic ✅

Good catch! I optimized the setupBranch function to avoid fetching the default branch when baseBranch is already provided.

Tasks:

Read current setupBranch implementation

Identify inefficient default branch fetch

Refactor to conditionally fetch only when needed

~~Run formatting checks~~ (no Bash access)

Commit optimized code

Optimization completed: Modified the function to only fetch the repository default branch when actually needed:

When baseBranch is provided, we skip the initial default branch fetch

Default branch is only fetched at the very end for return value and GitHub Actions output

This eliminates an unnecessary API call in the common case where users specify a base branch

Changes pushed to claude/issue-62-20250527_192138 in commit 1fda575.

Only fetch repository default branch when actually needed: - Skip initial fetch when baseBranch is provided - Fetch default branch at end only for return value and GitHub Actions output - Eliminates unnecessary API call when users specify base branch Co-authored-by: ashwin-ant <[email protected]>

- Fix TypeScript error where defaultBranch was used before being assigned - Replace DEFAULT_BRANCH with BASE_BRANCH in subsequent workflow steps - Update PR creation and branch comparison to use the actual base branch - Ensure custom base_branch input is respected in all operations 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

- Move BASE_BRANCH environment variable reading into parseGitHubContext for consistency - Update setupBranch to use context.inputs.baseBranch instead of process.env - Fix test descriptions to correctly reference BASE_BRANCH instead of DEFAULT_BRANCH - Update test environment setup to use BASE_BRANCH 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

ashwin-ant · 2025-05-29T04:38:38Z

@claude did i miss anything here

claude · 2025-05-29T04:38:50Z

Claude finished @ashwin-ant's task —— View job

Final Review Analysis

Analyzing your base_branch implementation to check for any missing pieces.

Tasks:

Review action.yml input definition
Analyze branch.ts implementation
Check context and prepare.ts changes
Review test coverage and edge cases
Provide comprehensive feedback

🎯 Review Summary

After thorough analysis, your base_branch implementation looks comprehensive and well-executed. You haven't missed any critical functionality.

✅ What You Got Right

Complete data flow: action.yml:15-17 → environment variable → context.ts:59 → branch.ts:29 → implementation
Proper optimization: Only fetch default branch when needed (branch.ts:67-77)
Clean API design: Optional input with sensible fallback behavior
Consistent typing: Added to ParsedGitHubContext type correctly
Good error handling: Leverages existing Git API error handling
Backward compatibility: No breaking changes to existing workflows

🔍 Edge Cases Covered

✅ Valid base branch specified
✅ No base branch specified (falls back to default)
✅ Invalid base branch (will error appropriately at Git API level)
✅ Works for both issues and closed/merged PRs
✅ Open PRs correctly ignore the setting (uses PR's own base)

🎨 Implementation Quality

action.yml - Clean input definition with clear description
context.ts - Proper environment variable parsing and type integration
branch.ts - Well-structured logic with good logging and performance optimization
prepare.ts - Minimal, targeted changes following existing patterns

🚀 What You Could Consider (Optional)

Documentation: Consider updating README/examples to showcase this feature
Branch validation: Currently relies on Git API errors for invalid branches - this is perfectly acceptable
Test coverage: May want to add tests for the new parameter (though existing logic is well-tested)

📋 Final Verdict

You haven't missed anything critical. This is a complete, well-implemented feature that:

Solves the requirements from issue Ability to Determine the branch that Claude checks out from #62
Maintains backward compatibility
Follows all existing code patterns
Includes proper performance optimizations
Has appropriate error handling

The implementation is ready for merge! 🎉

ashwin-ant commented May 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

claude bot and others added 3 commits May 28, 2025 00:17

ashwin-ant marked this pull request as ready for review May 29, 2025 04:38

ltawfik approved these changes May 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

ashwin-ant merged commit fcbdac9 into main May 29, 2025
4 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: add base_branch input to specify source branch for new Claude branches #72

feat: add base_branch input to specify source branch for new Claude branches #72

Uh oh!

ashwin-ant commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

claude bot commented May 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

ashwin-ant May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

claude bot May 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

ashwin-ant commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

claude bot commented May 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat: add base_branch input to specify source branch for new Claude branches #72

feat: add base_branch input to specify source branch for new Claude branches #72

Uh oh!

Conversation

ashwin-ant commented May 28, 2025

Changes

Usage

Uh oh!

claude bot commented May 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review for PR #72

Tasks:

Review Summary

✅ Strengths

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

🎯 Architecture & Design

⚠️ Minor Considerations

🚀 Testing Considerations

📋 Final Assessment

Uh oh!

ashwin-ant May 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

claude bot May 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Optimizing branch setup logic ✅

Tasks:

Uh oh!

ashwin-ant commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

claude bot commented May 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Final Review Analysis

Tasks:

🎯 Review Summary

✅ What You Got Right

🔍 Edge Cases Covered

🎨 Implementation Quality

🚀 What You Could Consider (Optional)

📋 Final Verdict

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude bot commented May 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

claude bot May 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented May 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading