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

Update publish_docs_co.yml with new Org Secrets #959

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 10, 2023

Conversation

scottybollinger
Copy link
Contributor

@scottybollinger scottybollinger commented Apr 6, 2023

We are refactoring our docs org secrets to segment our public from private docs. This PR updates the keys to the new ones.

After this is completed, @gtback will change the following secrets to private internal repos:

VERCEL_GITHUB_TOKEN
VERCEL_TOKEN
VERCEL_ORG_ID

We are refactoring our docs ord secrets to segment our public from private docs. This PR updates the keys to the new ones
@scottybollinger scottybollinger requested a review from a team as a code owner April 6, 2023 15:41
@scottybollinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gtback not sure if you were pinged or not, but this is the issue to track.

@gtback gtback added the ci:doc-build Runs a doc build label Apr 10, 2023
@gtback
Copy link
Member

gtback commented Apr 10, 2023

I added the label, but it didn't seem to kick off a GitHub action. I think that's because this doesn't actually modify the MDX or other content files, which are the only files that are triggers for the workflow. Regardless, this would have run using the workflow definition that's already in main (without these changes), so it wouldn't have been a good test.

I think we should plan to merge this (once approved), then immediately open a new PR to test the workflow works correctly with the new secrets. After that I'll update the configuration for the org secrets.

@gtback
Copy link
Member

gtback commented Apr 10, 2023

@scottybollinger I'm fine if you want to wait for one of the @elastic/search-ui-maintainers to approve this as well, but I think it's relatively low-risk to merge as long as we're prepared to test and roll back if there are any problems.

@scottybollinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@scottybollinger I'm fine if you want to wait for one of the @elastic/search-ui-maintainers to approve this as well, but I think it's relatively low-risk to merge as long as we're prepared to test and roll back if there are any problems.

Thanks. I don't have access to merge it. Will wait on one of the maintainers to do so.

@sloanelybutsurely sloanelybutsurely merged commit c095ddb into elastic:main Apr 10, 2023
@sloanelybutsurely
Copy link

I added the label, but it didn't seem to kick off a GitHub action. I think that's because this doesn't actually modify the MDX or other content files, which are the only files that are triggers for the workflow. Regardless, this would have run using the workflow definition that's already in main (without these changes), so it wouldn't have been a good test.

I think we should plan to merge this (once approved), then immediately open a new PR to test the workflow works correctly with the new secrets. After that I'll update the configuration for the org secrets.

@gtback @scottybollinger all set!

@gtback
Copy link
Member

gtback commented Apr 10, 2023

Thanks, @sloanelybutsurely !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci:doc-build Runs a doc build
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants