-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 929
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
infra: fix preflight comment for external contributors #3038
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
6353ede
to
57859ff
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #3038 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.96% 99.97%
=======================================
Files 2772 2772
Lines 226173 226173
Branches 944 942 -2
=======================================
+ Hits 226095 226108 +13
+ Misses 78 65 -13 |
as with your other PR, please first adjust the PR title to something matching with the history |
Done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current PR desciption doesn't provide information why the setup did not work previously. I can follow the steps done in the PR, but can't confirm for myself why this fixes the problem. Could you be so kind to give a short explanation in the PR description, please.
Sure, will add it when I'm back. |
FYI: I tested this implementation against @ST-DDT's fork and it worked as expected. |
Ready for review |
This PR fixes the preflight comments for external contributors.
PRs that are created from third party repositories are run with read only permissions, thus the CI run is unable to post the comment to the PR.
There are two solutions to that issue:
The pull_request_target event based CI pipeline is considered dangerous if it uses the checked out code and since the pipeline actually uses the PRs code in order to determine whether it is complete or not, this is not an option.
So this PR uses the second option and runs an independent CI step using the code from next to run the script to update the comment.
Example
I hope that I tested this sufficiently and this isn't just a flawed test setup.
It would be good, if you could test this by creating a PR with preflight diffs against
ST-DDT/faker:next
(optimally by using your own forks of faker instead of from the main repo)0f10028
(#21)