-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 889
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
Look before leaping #8292
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Look before leaping #8292
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.
Is there a way we can perform this check without adding noise to our already long workflow file?
It's possible you don't need to check all of these inputs. If the programs can be changed to not die if the variables are missing, then this kind of stuff wouldn't be necessary. But, generally GitHub workflows don't expose secrets to You can manipulate the |
I see, so there doesn't seem like a cleaner alternative. |
You could simplify to But that'd make it harder for an external to contribute patches. |
Since these workflows are only used by our team and should never be ran on forks, I don't think this makes it harder for anyone external to contribute. |
Discussion
#8274
#8275 (comment)
Testing
Yes
API Changes