Let's say there is a repository foo/bar which I forked to me/custom-bar. How do I check programmatically (API call maybe?) given foo/bar that there exists a fork that I own from this upstream? Currently, GitHub has the repos/owner/id/forks API endpoint that returns upto 100 entries if you explicitly mention it. I don't see any parameters for creating a custom query for this particular problem. Counting in the rate-limiting and stuff, I don't think it's possible to know this using this API endpoint if I had say a fork of the linux project where over 20k+ forks exist. Is there any fast and efficient way to know this?
Note: I don't want to use authentication if at all possible.
New option (June 2022), directly on GitHub (instead of locally through API)
The repository fork button now displays existing forks
A dropdown has been added to the Fork button to help you quickly find your forks of a repository. This includes forks in your personal account and in organizations that you're a member of.
This feature was inspired by Refined GitHub – an impressive open source project maintained by #fregante.
The feature was requested of GitHub through the GitHub Stars program.
Read more about forking a repository in the GitHub documentation.
We appreciate feedback on this and other topics in GitHub's public feedback discussions.
As a workaround... you can always try to fork your own repo (POST /repos/:owner/:repo/forks).
As explained in "Is it possible to 'fork a fork' in Github?", that won't be generally possible (for a sigle non-organization account) to do if your own repo is itself a fork.
A solution here will be:
Check your repositories using GET /users/:username/repos
For each repo which fork property is true, GEt repository information using GET /repos/:owner/:repo
Check the parent object in json response (that contains parent folder of fork) and validate if full_name is your foo/bar repo
Related
I've almost done my first big project in React+Typescript+Redux and started it on Firebase with users and some database conneted with logged users.
It was supposed to be my project to portfolio before looking for my first dev job, but it start to be very complex.
Now I have idea to use it in the future to make commercial app.
So the problem is I don't want to publish my code on github, but at the same time I want to publish all my commits and repository description on Github for recrutiers (and all my tasks from trello table). Is it possible to publish only commits and description from github repository?
No, this is not possible. If your repository is public, anyone can clone the entire repository. The only way to make your code inaccessible is to make the repository private, which means nobody can see it without having permssion.
I am now building portfolio to get my first tech job. I would like for any recruiters/potential employers to see my code in case they want to see how I am putting things together but I don't want anyone to be able to fork or copy my work.
How is this possible?
If I have a private GitHub repo does that mean that you can see the repo but just not the inner contents? I have looked at the GitHub documentation already.
If I have a private GitHub repo does that mean that you can see the repo but just not the inner contents?
If you can access a repository (public or private), that means you can read its content and/or clone it (and read its content locally)
You would need to setup a private repository dedicated to show your file
names, meaning a collection of files with:
dummy content
the exact names and folder structure than your actual projects.
That way, you can share to select collaborator access to that "showcase" repository, without compromising the sensitive content of your actual project repositories.
I have a repository which contains a badge from Travis-CI. This badge is included in the Readme.md with the following link, as suggested by Travis-CI documentation:
[](https://travis-ci.org/nikicc/orange3-text)
However, now everyone that forks my repo will got the links to my Travis-CI badge, since it is hardcoded along with my username. I would like to achieve that all forks automatically have the links to theirs badges, not mine. Is it possible to somehow bypass this by using some variable for the username of the repository inside Readme.md files on Github? Is there any nice solution for this?
There is an alternative way to make it work:
Github: Can I see the number of downloads for a repo?
(https://github.com/andry81-devops/github-accum-stats)
It can be adopted the same way for an external service or site with data. All you need is to write a shell or any other script and call it from the github workflow action (.github/workflows/blabla.yml file).
The only thing can be a problem here is the GitHub workflow pipline call frequency, which might has a limit something about 1 call per 1 hour or 15 minutes (I didn't test it).
The idea is the same - store the status in a separate repository and does update it from a GitHub workflow action. Later you can use another action to rewrite the statistic repository below the head commit to cut off the history of changes if not need it.
I want to fork a github project to fix a couple of issues and then send a pull request.
The problem I'm running into is that I've already forked the project to adapt it for another user base.
Is it possible to create a second fork? If so, how?
When I try to fork now it just takes me to the previously created fork.
There is no way to have two forks of the same GitHub project unless you use two different GitHub accounts.
So:
Create a separate GitHub account (and verify the email)
Fork the
project
Invite your main GitHub account as a "Collaborator" (from
the settings)
You may need to add the extra step of creating an organization with the new GitHub account and inviting your main github account as an owner of the organization (also make sure your new fork is in that new organization). This will let you do things like deploy automatically to a Heroku app that is connected to your main GitHub account.
Why can't we just have multiple forks???
I mean that I could just commit and push without making a pull request, but I want to do it the offical way and I want somebody else to review the changes before I push to a public project.
GitHub pull requests do not need to be submitted from a fork; they work within a single repository as well:
Pull requests are especially useful in the fork & pull model because they provide a way to notify project maintainers about changes in your fork. However, they're also useful in the shared repository model where they're used to initiate code review and general discussion about a set of changes before being merged into a mainline branch.
There's nothing stopping you from creating a pull request even if you don't technically have to. This is often considered a best practice, and GitHub's own Flow model is largely based on pull requests.
Creating a pull request within a single repository is very similar to creating one from a fork:
Create a feature branch and push your work to that branch on GitHub
In the GitHub web UI, switch to your feature branch
Click the "Compare" & review button
The trick is not to use the master branch to create pull requests. Then you won't need to create multiple forks since you can make as many branches as you need and make pull requests against each branch independently.
Given a clean forked repo, create a dedicated branch and use that branch for the pull request.
You can create branches from the web UI (although it is not obvious).
Click the branch selection dropdown, type the new branch name in the input field, and then you'll see a clickable link Create branch: <new-branch-name> as shown below. The tricky UI part is that it might not be very obvious you should click the "create branch: xyz..." — it is NOT displayed as a button or as a hyperlink, and there is NO indication that this is a clickable link. Moreover, there is NO hint whatsoever that a branch can be created until you type in the search box — anyone would probably assume that the search box is used exclusively for searching branches, and not for creating them.
In case you already made changes directly in your fork's master branch then consider moving those changes into a dedicated branch and hard resetting the master branch to the original remote so that you keep it clean for synching with the upstream repo.
See also:
https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/proposing-changes-to-your-work-with-pull-requests/creating-and-deleting-branches-within-your-repository
The best way, recommended by github manual, is use command line git, mirror clone your repo and push it to your github.
https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/duplicating-a-repository
If you strongly prefer GitHub web interface to the command line, a GUI friendly workaround is create a new organization and fork to that new organization.
Another GUI way I can think of is to declare a fork as a template repo using repo's setting so you can create as many forks as you need.
I've previously forked jockm/vert.x and sent him a pull request. Now I want to fork vert-x/vert.x (the upstream of jockm/vert.x) and send them a different pull request. But when I click the Fork button, unsuprisingly I end up in my tjcrowder/vert.x fork of jockm/vert.x instead. Is it possible to fork both vert-x/vert.x and jockm/vert.x simultaneously such that I can send each pull requests as appropriate?
I fear the answer may be the same as for this question about the converse situation ("there's no GitHub way, but you can add a remote repo") but I'm hoping otherwise — not least because I don't see how the answer there would allow me to send pull requests to the new remote.
There's no GitHub way (small lie, see below), but there's also nothing to fear.
By definition, your fork of a fork is a fork of the original.
When you open a pull request, you get the option to choose both the origin and the destination for your pull request. The choices available there obviously depend on the fork graph, but as long as there is a path in the graph between the 2 repositories, you should be safe.
Also, since pull requests live on the website side, you don't even need to add a remote as long as you don't want to use it from git.
Now of course, you might want to reconsider your place in that graph, and make yourself a direct child of the real upstream, but that's mostly unrelated.
As said earlier there is actually a twisted way to have multiple forks, which is to create organizations and fork in them. That way you can "own" multiple repositories in the same graph. But there's really no need to go there.
Thanks to sigma's answer, I saw that not only is the upstream repo available when I go to do a pull request on the jockm/vert.x repo, but all other forks of the upstream repo are as well. So what I ended up doing was:
Deleting my fork of jockm/vert.x and instead forking vert-x/vert.x, since mostly I want to work within the main upstream repo, not jockm's version.
Creating a branch for the commit I wanted to send to jockm, and a separate branch for the commit I wanted to send to vert-x.
Making the relevant changes to each branch.
Sending pull requests for each branch to the relevant repos, since the jockm/vert.x repo is listed as a possible target for the request (along with about 200 other forks).
I used separate branches (basically topic branches) so that those commits would remain the only thing in those pull requests, since subsequent commits on the same branch are automatically added to the pull request, and these changes needed to remain isolated until/unless merged.
It seems like the better option would be to create a branch on your fork, and create a pull request from that branch. You can use branches to "fork" your version
I didn't see any specifics on "multiple forks", so I would probably end up creating another GitHub account, under which I would do the second clone, and send the different pull request to vert.x/vert.x.
Since you can have "Multiple github accounts on the same computer" (with the right ssh config file, also described here), it is a possible workaround.
Note that, however, this is supported by GitLab, with GitLab 14.0 (June 2021):
Edit default path and project name when forking
Edit default path and project name when forking
Forking a project enables you to have an exact copy of an original repository where you can experiment, apply changes, and submit contributions to the parent project.
Your forks should have meaningful names that explain their goals, and if your project is diverging, you may need multiple forks of a single project.
In this release, GitLab now supports editing the project name and project slug directly when you create a fork.
You can now create multiple forks of the same project, each with a different name, all in the same group!
See Documentation and Issue.
You could also just create a new Organization under your profile/settings. Then you can fork different states of the same original repo through the same account.