-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Support creating repos if not exist #31
Support creating repos if not exist #31
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me, let some comments and a couple of notes:
- should add to the README
- I agree that we can just have the
create_visibility
input to capture both--create
and the visibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
generally lgtm with few nits, in practice, creating resources require at least organization admin role, and I wonder how many user will put an admin token into the Github action, but this still feel useful to me
Co-authored-by: Tommy Ma <33741651+cyinma@users.noreply.github.com>
Add optional key
create_visibility
to action, specifying it adds--create --create-visibility
tobuf generate
invocation.Note that CLI requires both
--create
and--create-visibility
, whereas this action only requirescreate_visibility
.I prefer it this way because GitHub action error feedback loop is longer than the CLI. In an action, a user modifies the workflow file, commits it, pushes, waits for the action to run, checks result (a few clicks), sees an error. On the CLI, a user types on the command line and sees the result right away.
It is easier for the user to get it right on the first try if we only require one field.
I am also open to require
create
as well, for consistency with the CLI.