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

Use pull_request_target event to run in base of pr #311

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

anothrNick
Copy link
Owner

Summary of changes

Use pull_request_target event to run in base of pr (workflow yaml)

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target

Breaking Changes

Do any of the included changes break current behaviour or configuration?

NO

How changes have been tested

List any unknowns

@anothrNick anothrNick merged commit 61a011b into master Apr 12, 2024
4 checks passed
@anothrNick anothrNick mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2024
@anothrNick
Copy link
Owner Author

@sbe-arg This appears to have resolved the issue.

Looking back, most of the PRs are from your branches within this repo, a lot of the more recent changes from other contributors were to documentation or other files that wouldn't trigger a workflow.

Older PRs from forked repos may have passed due to the timing of the permission changes or something, not sure exactly why we didn't need the pull_request_target sooner.

@sbe-arg
Copy link
Collaborator

sbe-arg commented Apr 12, 2024

Okay.

Thanks for sorting this out.
But I don't quite understand the motive on all of the hard restoring commits approach and merging without per reviews. Not the best practice in a large used open source tool.

@anothrNick
Copy link
Owner Author

My apologies, just trying to fix the build quickly while I had some time to take a peak.

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