Skip to content
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

skip failing check run for dependabot branches during luacheck report publishing #75

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 12, 2024

Conversation

saisatishkarra
Copy link
Collaborator

@saisatishkarra saisatishkarra commented Jan 12, 2024

  • skip failing check run creation by dependabot only used while testing the shared action due when publishing lua check test results.
  • Downstream repos always skip lua check when the actor is dependabot
  • Fix requires creating a separate workflow for publishing test results which can be skipped for testing purposes for dependabot branches

skip failing checks due to check run creation by dependabot
@saisatishkarra saisatishkarra requested review from a team as code owners January 12, 2024 16:42
Copy link

Luacheck Report

1 files  ±0  1 suites  ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
4 tests ±0  4 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
8 runs  ±0  8 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 7459226. ± Comparison against base commit b7def0b.

@saisatishkarra saisatishkarra changed the title skip dependabot branches for luacheck xml report publishing skip failing check run for dependabot branches during luacheck report publishing Jan 12, 2024
@saisatishkarra
Copy link
Collaborator Author

saisatishkarra commented Jan 12, 2024

This fix should unblock all the pending dependabot PRs due to failing checks

@saisatishkarra saisatishkarra merged commit da9aa97 into main Jan 12, 2024
10 checks passed
@saisatishkarra saisatishkarra deleted the fix/lua-report-publish branch January 12, 2024 17:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants