fix: grant pull-requests: write for issue_comment reactions (slash_command PR comment fix)

docs/adr/26535-event-scoped-activation-permission-derivation.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The `gh aw compile` command generates a lock file that includes an activation jo
 
 ### Decision
 
-We will derive activation job permissions by parsing the `on:` section YAML at compile time, filtering out known metadata trigger fields, and granting only the write scopes required by the real GitHub event types that are configured. `issues: write` is granted only when `issues`, `issue_comment`, or `pull_request` events are present (since reactions and status comments on issues/PRs use the Issues REST API). `pull-requests: write` is granted only when `pull_request_review_comment` events are present. `discussions: write` is granted only when `discussion` or `discussion_comment` events are present. A fallback to the previous broad-grant behavior is preserved for synthetic or test `WorkflowData` instances where the `on:` section is empty.
+We will derive activation job permissions by parsing the `on:` section YAML at compile time, filtering out known metadata trigger fields, and granting only the write scopes required by the real GitHub event types that are configured. `issues: write` is granted only when `issues`, `issue_comment`, or `pull_request` events are present (since reactions and status comments on issues/PRs use the Issues REST API). `pull-requests: write` is granted when `pull_request` or `pull_request_review_comment` events are present, or when `issue_comment` is present with PR reactions enabled (because `issue_comment` fires for PR comments and GitHub requires `pull-requests: write` to react to PR comments). `discussions: write` is granted only when `discussion` or `discussion_comment` events are present. A fallback to the previous broad-grant behavior is preserved for synthetic or test `WorkflowData` instances where the `on:` section is empty.
 
 ### Alternatives Considered
 
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Request a minimal token at activation time and escalate permissions lazily when
 ### Activation Permission Derivation
 
 1. Implementations **MUST** derive activation job write permissions from the set of real GitHub event types present in the `on:` section, not from the presence of `reaction` or `status-comment` configuration alone.
-2. Implementations **MUST NOT** grant `pull-requests: write` in the activation job unless `pull_request_review_comment` is among the configured trigger events.
+2. Implementations **MUST NOT** grant `pull-requests: write` in the activation job unless `pull_request`, `pull_request_review_comment`, or `issue_comment` is among the configured trigger events and the reaction/status-comment configuration includes pull requests. (`issue_comment` events fire for both issue comments and PR comments; since PR comments require `pull-requests: write` for reactions, the presence of `issue_comment` with PR reactions enabled mandates this permission.)
 3. Implementations **MUST NOT** grant `discussions: write` in the activation job unless `discussion` or `discussion_comment` is among the configured trigger events.
 4. Implementations **MUST NOT** grant `issues: write` solely for reaction/status-comment purposes unless `issues`, `issue_comment`, or `pull_request` is among the configured trigger events.
 5. Implementations **MUST** apply the same permission derivation logic to both the activation job `permissions` block and the GitHub App token minting permissions.

pkg/workflow/activation_permissions_scope_test.go

@@ -362,3 +362,64 @@ func TestAddActivationInteractionPermissionsMapFallbackRespectsStatusCommentPull
 	assert.False(t, hasPullRequests, "fallback should omit pull-requests:write when reactions are disabled")
 	assert.Equal(t, PermissionWrite, permsMap[PermissionDiscussions], "fallback should include discussions:write when status-comment.discussions is true")
 }
+
+// TestActivationPermissionsIssueCommentReactionRequiresPullRequestsWrite verifies that
+// issue_comment triggers with PR reactions grant pull-requests:write. This covers the
+// slash_command case (events:[pull_request_comment] compiles to issue_comment) where
+// reactions on PR comments require pull-requests:write even though the API uses /issues/comments.
+func TestActivationPermissionsIssueCommentReactionRequiresPullRequestsWrite(t *testing.T) {
+	permsMap := map[PermissionScope]PermissionLevel{}
+
+	onSection := "on:\n  issue_comment:\n    types: [created]\n"
+	addActivationInteractionPermissionsMap(permsMap, onSection,
+		/* hasReaction */ true,
+		/* reactionIncludesIssues */ true,
+		/* reactionIncludesPullRequests */ true,
+		/* reactionIncludesDiscussions */ false,
+		/* hasStatusComment */ false,
+		/* statusCommentIncludesIssues */ false,
+		/* statusCommentIncludesPullRequests */ false,
+		/* statusCommentIncludesDiscussions */ false,
+	)
+
+	assert.Equal(t, PermissionWrite, permsMap[PermissionIssues], "issue_comment reaction should include issues:write")
+	assert.Equal(t, PermissionWrite, permsMap[PermissionPullRequests], "issue_comment reaction should include pull-requests:write because PR comments use issue_comment event")
+	_, hasDiscussions := permsMap[PermissionDiscussions]
+	assert.False(t, hasDiscussions, "issue_comment reaction should not include discussions:write")
+}
+
+// TestActivationPermissionsSlashCommandPRCommentReactionRequiresPullRequestsWrite verifies
+// end-to-end that a slash_command workflow with events:[pull_request_comment] produces an
+// activation job with pull-requests:write. slash_command compiles to issue_comment, and
+// GitHub requires pull-requests:write to react to PR comments (#26720 follow-up).
+func TestActivationPermissionsSlashCommandPRCommentReactionRequiresPullRequestsWrite(t *testing.T) {
+	tmpDir := testutil.TempDir(t, "activation-perms-slash-command-pr-comment")
+	testFile := filepath.Join(tmpDir, "slash-command-pr-comment.md")
+	testContent := `---
+on:
+  slash_command:
+    name: review
+    events: [pull_request_comment]
+  reaction: eyes
+  status-comment: false
+engine: copilot
+---
+
+# Slash command PR comment reaction permissions
+`
+
+	err := os.WriteFile(testFile, []byte(testContent), 0644)
+	require.NoError(t, err, "failed to write test workflow")
+
+	compiler := NewCompiler()
+	err = compiler.CompileWorkflow(testFile)
+	require.NoError(t, err, "failed to compile workflow")
+
+	lockContent, err := os.ReadFile(stringutil.MarkdownToLockFile(testFile))
+	require.NoError(t, err, "failed to read generated lock file")
+
+	activationJobSection := extractJobSection(string(lockContent), string(constants.ActivationJobName))
+	assert.Contains(t, activationJobSection, "issues: write", "activation job should include issues:write for PR comment reactions via issue_comment event")
+	assert.Contains(t, activationJobSection, "pull-requests: write", "activation job should include pull-requests:write for slash_command PR comment reactions")
+	assert.NotContains(t, activationJobSection, "discussions: write", "activation job should not include discussions:write for slash_command PR comment reactions")
+}

pkg/workflow/compiler_activation_job.go

@@ -164,8 +164,10 @@ func addActivationInteractionPermissionsMap(
 		if needsIssuesWriteForReaction {
 			permsMap[PermissionIssues] = PermissionWrite
 		}
-		// Reactions on pull requests and PR review comments require pull-requests:write.
-		if reactionIncludesPullRequests && (hasPullRequestEvent || hasPullRequestReviewCommentEvent) {
+		// Reactions on pull requests and PR review comments require pull-requests: write.
+		// issue_comment events also fire for PR comments (slash_command with events:[pull_request_comment]
+		// compiles to issue_comment), so pull-requests: write is also needed when issue_comment is present.
+		if reactionIncludesPullRequests && (hasPullRequestEvent || hasPullRequestReviewCommentEvent || hasIssueCommentEvent) {
 			permsMap[PermissionPullRequests] = PermissionWrite
 		}
 		// Reactions on discussions use GraphQL discussion APIs.