In our github organization we have a lot of repositories. All of them shall convert JIRA tickets names in comments/PRs like XYZ-123 to links to the corresponding JIRA ticket. This is possible with Autolinking.
The downside of this approach ist, that Autolinking is supporting only Prefixes (no regex-es like GitLab). This results in one entry per JIRA projekt (i.e if I want to support ABC-123 and XYZ-123 two entries with the prefix ABC- and XYZ- are required).
What makes things worse is, that Autolinking has to be configured per repository. This means I have to add all Autolink entries to every Repository in our company (and maintain these lists).
Is there no simpler solution?
There does not seem to be any native simpler solution than the official Configuring autolinks to reference external resources.
You would need a GitHub Action to update a PR, replacing/making the JIRA links as you want them to be.
Example, with a .github/workflows/pr_update.yml:
name: PR update
on:
pull_request:
types: [opened]
jobs:
update_pr:
name: Update PR
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: tzkhan/pr-update-action#v2
with:
repo-token: "${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}"
base-branch-regex: '[A-Za-z\d-_.\\/]+'
head-branch-regex: '^([A-Za-z])+-\d+'
title-template: '%headbranch%: '
body-template: |
Jira issue: %headbranch%
---
body-update-action: 'prefix'
body-uppercase-base-match: false
Related
I have a called workflow that deploys the app to Heroku. It is triggered by a pr comment.
name: Preview App Deployment
on:
issue_comment:
types: [created]
jobs:
call-heroku-preview-app:
name: Deploy to Heroku
if: ${{ contains(github.event.comment.body, '/deploy') }}
uses: ./.github/workflows/heroku-preview-app.yml
However, it doesn't show up in the pr checks as it does for jobs that are triggered by
on:
pull_request:
types: [synchronize, opened, reopened, ready_for_review]
branches-ignore: [master, production]
which hurts visibility. Also, I'm planning to add another workflow triggered by a comment that runs unit and e2e tests. If the result won't be included in the Github checks it will be a problem.
So is it really impossible to include them there or I'm missing something?
PR Checks are attached to a commit, but when you're running a workflow on issue_comment what would the context be? Intuitively, comment in a PR is not a thing related to a commit.
In fact, when looking at ${{ github.sha }} inside a workflow triggered by issue_comment, the SHA is actually that of the default branch.
You could manually add a check using the Check Runs API.
However, when triggering this on issue_comment, you're going to have to replace the value github.sha with your own logic to identify the tip of the branch associated with the PR for which the comment was made.
- uses: actions/checkout#v3
- run: echo ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | gh auth login --with-token
- run: echo '{"name":"Test Check","head_sha":"${{ github.sha }}"}' | gh api /repos/{owner}/{repo}/check-runs --input -
Is there are reason you're only deploying when a comment is made? Why not deploy on every push? As you mentioned end-to-end tests as well, this would be another type of thing that is usually run automatically rather than when a person adds a comment.
I have two workflows, the first one runs a build script and generates an artifact.
The first one is triggered when a pull request is created like this:
name: build
on:
pull_request:
types: [opened, edited, ready_for_review, reopened]
The second flow runs when the first is done, by using the workflow_runtrigger like this:
on:
workflow_run:
workflows: ["build"]
types:
- "completed"
The second flow has to be separate and run after the first one. When done it is supposed to post a comment on the PR that triggered the first workflow, but I am unable to find out how.
According to the Github Action Docs this is one of the typical use cases, as per this qoute:
For example, if your pull_request workflow generates build artifacts, you can create
a new workflow that uses workflow_run to analyze the results and add a comment to the
original pull request.
But I can't seem to find out how. I can get the first workflow's id in the 2nd workflow's context.payload.workflow_run.id, but workflow_run should also have about the pull request, but they`re empty.
What am I doing wrong, and where can I find the necessary info to be able to comment on my created pull request?
You're not doing anything wrong, it's just that the Pull Request datas from the first workflow are not present in the Github Context of the second workflow.
To resolve your problem, you could send the Pull Request datas you need from the first workflow to the second workflow.
There are different ways to do it, for example using a dispatch event (instead of a workflow run), or an artifact.
For the artifact, it would look like something as below:
In the FIRST workflow, you get the PR number from the github.event. Then you save that number into a file and upload it as an artifact.
- name: Save the PR number in an artifact
shell: bash
env:
PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER: ${{ github.event.number }}
run: echo $PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER > pull_request_number.txt
- name: Upload the PULL REQUEST number
uses: actions/upload-artifact#v2
with:
name: pull_request_number
path: ./pull_request_number.txt
In the SECOND workflow, you get the artifact and the Pull Request number from the FIRST workflow, using the following GitHub Apps:
- name: Download workflow artifact
uses: dawidd6/action-download-artifact#v2.11.0
with:
github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
workflow: <first_workflow_name>.yml
run_id: ${{ github.event.workflow_run.id }}
- name: Read the pull_request_number.txt file
id: pull_request_number_reader
uses: juliangruber/read-file-action#v1.0.0
with:
path: ./pull_request_number/pull_request_number.txt
- name: Step to add comment on PR
[...]
I am trying to validation JSONs using Github workflow. But the problem here is that I have multiple JSON files that I need to validate. I tried looking up for a way to validate all of them everywhere but there is none that I could find.
My work flow code is here.
name: Validate JSONs
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
verify-json-validation:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout#v1
- name: Validate JSON
uses: docker://orrosenblatt/validate-json-action:latest
env:
INPUT_SCHEMA: /.github/workflows/schema.json
INPUT_JSONS: /*.json
I am unable to understand how I can add the INPUT_JSONS path dynamically so that it could validate all jsons.
That usecase is part of pending tickets:
OrRosenblatt/validate-json-action issue 22: [Feature] Detect JSON Files
OrRosenblatt/validate-json-action PR 23: Added Glob Functionality
By making your own fork of that action, using PR 23 mentioned above, you would have support for *.json.
I don't quite understand the extent to which Github actions/cache works, what I mean:
Caching works fine if I make a pull request and then in the same pull request I add 1 more commit, but if I create a new pull request in the same branch - the caching is reset and starts again, but why?
Is there any way to extend file caching to all yml files and so that each pull request uses existing caching?
Because to speed up the work it turns out - that developers always need to pour their work into one branch, and it somehow sounds like some nonsense.
Info
My caching key is formed as follows
- uses: actions/cache#v2
id: composer-cache
with:
path: .github/docker/development/php-cli/composer/cache
key: ${{ runner.os }}-develop-composer-${{ hashFiles('src/composer.lock') }}
restore-keys: |
${{ runner.os }}-develop-composer-
Yeah, GitHub's cache action has unintuitive behavior across branches. Pull request workflows don't share, and tag workflows never get a cache hit.
Per the docs (useful bit made bold):
A workflow can access and restore a cache created in the current branch, the base branch (including base branches of forked repositories), or the default branch (usually main). For example, a cache created on the default branch would be accessible from any pull request. Also, if the branch feature-b has the base branch feature-a, a workflow triggered on feature-b would have access to caches created in the default branch (main), feature-a, and feature-b.
So the solution then is to make a separate workflow triggered by pushes to main — plus any base branches you like — just to keep a fresh cache available to pull requests and tags.
I've recently added a static analysis step to my GitHub actions. However, it is somewhat expensive so I'm trying to reduce the number of times that this step is run. I've already added an appropriate filter so that it only runs on one OS and so that it only runs on my "feature" branches. However, I would like to also filter out any checkins that include "WIP" in their commit message. (The theory being that there is no point in performing the full analysis until it is no longer a "Work In Progress".)
I've searched through the docs, expecting I would find an object I could use as part of the github context object, but to no avail.
Any ideas on how I can accomplish this goal?
If you want to see exactly what I'm doing, the action Yaml is as follows. I'm hoping to find some change I can make to the if statement on the Static Analysis item that would accomplish my goal.
name: On Push
on: [push]
jobs:
build:
runs-on: ${{ matrix.os }}
strategy:
matrix:
os: [ubuntu-latest, macos-latest]
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout#v1
- name: Build
run: |
./configure
make -j 4
- name: Run tests
run: |
make -j 4 check
- name: Static Analysis
if: runner.os == 'macOS' && startsWith(github.ref, 'refs/heads/feature/')
run: |
make analyze
You can make use of the event property on the github context to access the push payload.
Add the following to the step that does the analysis:
if: !startsWith(github.event.head_commit.message, 'WIP')
Related to your issue, you now (Feb. 2021) have:
GitHub Actions: Skip pull request and push workflows
with [skip ci]
GitHub Actions now supports skipping push and pull_request workflows by looking for some common keywords in your commit message.
If any commit message in your push or the HEAD commit of your PR contains the strings [skip ci], [ci skip], [no ci], [skip actions], or [actions skip] workflows triggered on the push or pull_request events will be skipped.
This is not as flexible as a custom commit message (like your "WIP"), but it still can help.
if: ${{ !startsWith(github.event.head_commit.message, '#NORUN') }}
Syntax should be like this