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
Identify a check by name within CI action #76
Comments
Makes sense. Additionally, it would be a good occasion for shortening default names a bit (they all overflow GitHub 's UI) |
Yah, but we have to be careful here as these names might be used with "exclude". Because thats the only way how you can exclude jobs as of now. But maybe this is only relevant for this action and not for the container action. 👍🏻 |
Oh, I actually found out that the checks do actually have a name. It is just not used anywhere: I'll see if we can somehow pass these around while also slightly modifying the |
This feature is based on the feedback from @Ocramius in laminas#76 and provides better namings to github UI. This will also prevent laminas#31 with its extended commands where we do check for linting before actually executing the command itself. Signed-off-by: Maximilian Bösing <2189546+boesing@users.noreply.github.com>
Feature Request
Summary
Hey there,
I am currently working on something and I have the following use-case:
additional_checks
(works ootb, but...)So the latter does work due to prior changes made to this action. The problem is, that I now want to identify this exact
additional_check
somehow. Because the main idea of this check would be:Run tests on lowest PHP version with locked deps but disable one or more PHP extensions (to see if tests are still passing due to precautions or polyfills) and/or disallow PHP functions.
So, I'd like to have some kind of optional
name
within thejob
configuration which can be used as some kind of unique identifier. When added, this can be extract within apre-run.sh
for example.An alternative would be to actually allow disabling extensions via the
job
array. That would make the whole thing easier but maybe its worth having both "features" up and running.WDYT?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: