Restore banz scraper and lawgit functionality #18
Conversation
|
Bisher funktioniert von den scrapern nur der banz_scraper (wir bekommen also nur Daten vom Bundesanzeiger). Mir fehlt noch das Hintergrundwissen ob wir damit Gesetzesänderungen verpassen, oder ob auch alles im BAnz veröffentlicht wird |
|
This pull request is mostly about the banz scraper, I can probably get the first commit rebased on top of your automated porting work. |
jbruechert
force-pushed
the
restore-functionality
branch
from
c1a3e42
to
d44ff34
Compare
jbruechert
changed the title
|
Can we maybe just open issues for things we are working on? I'd like to avoid having to read yet another chat service. |
|
I am totally fine with issues - this is just for convenience, voice & video chat if needed for coordination |
jbruechert
force-pushed
the
restore-functionality
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b4f4cc3
to
44644fc
Compare
jbruechert
changed the title
jbruechert
force-pushed
the
restore-functionality
branch
from
44644fc
to
f67e985
Compare
jbruechert
changed the title
|
This should be ready now. At least if you are okay with the added log function in lawgit, which I found useful to debug whether something is happening while it prints the same message multiple times so the console would not visibly change. |
jbruechert
force-pushed
the
restore-functionality
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c068f87
to
f0b6ba6
Compare
|
GitHub seems to be a bit stupid again, on the branch the checks ran just fine, but they are not displayed here: https://github.com/JBBgameich/gesetze-tools/commits/restore-functionality. Is there anything I can do about it? |
I added some typing for me to understand the script, and kept it because it will probably also help others. I also added a small log function, to see if something is happening when the same message is printed multiple times
jbruechert
force-pushed
the
restore-functionality
branch
from
f0b6ba6
to
5af95b3
Compare
|
You need to rebase |
|
your branch > rebase from master > force push > your branch > profit |
|
I already did that, as mentioned, the checks run fine on the branch |
|
Maybe thats a security feature to not expose potential secrets. I recommend to work directly on this Repo instead of a fork. I never had this problem before tho... |
|
It's a GitHub bug, the new pull request works. |
|
I think its about security. If you change the workflow and write a script which would expose a secret to the log it would be bad. But yeahr - makes forks even less usable as they already are - so considering it a bug might be valid ;) |
|
I doubt this is a security feature. The workflow ran just fine. The result was just not propagated to the pull request. |
No description provided.