Update workflow-commands-for-github-actions.md

[MayCXC]

Why:

The behavior I currently see in workflows is that outputs are not present when not defined in a job, like they were in this example.

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):

workflow docs example

Check off the following:

• I have reviewed my changes in staging (look for the "Automatically generated comment" and click the links in the "Preview" column to view your latest changes).
• For content changes, I have completed the self-review checklist.

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[github-actions]

Automatically generated comment ℹ️

This comment is automatically generated and will be overwritten every time changes are committed to this branch.

The table contains an overview of files in the content directory that have been changed in this pull request. It's provided to make it easy to review your changes on the staging site. Please note that changes to the data directory will not show up in this table.

---

Content directory changes

You may find it useful to copy this table into the pull request summary. There you can edit it to share links to important articles or changes and to give a high-level overview of how the changes in your pull request support the overall goals of the pull request.

Source	Preview	Production	What Changed
actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.10 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 ghae	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.10 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 ghae

---

fpt: Free, Pro, Team
ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud
ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server
ghae: GitHub AE

[MayCXC]

reopening after testing more, looks like the job outputs are empty when set up like this example, and it contradicts: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#setting-an-output-parameter

[steveward]

Thanks for the PR @MayCXC, I'll get this triaged for review.

[rsese]

change makes sense to me 👍

for this bit further down in the next job to work:

        SECRET_HANDLE="${{ needs.secret-generator.outputs.handle }}"{% endraw %}

the handle output needs to be defined in the secret-generator job

[sabrowning1]

Thanks again for catching this and opening a PR @MayCXC! ✨ I've requested one small formatting change below, then this should be good to go.

[peterbe]

Hi @MayCXC Thanks for your contribution!
Can you heed @sabrowning1 's suggestion and then I think we can finish the review of this. Thanks in advance!

[sabrowning1]

👋🏼 @MayCXC, I've committed my suggestion and will merge this shortly. Thanks again for your help maintaining our docs! ✨

[github-actions]

Thanks very much for contributing! Your pull request has been merged 🎉 You should see your changes appear on the site in approximately 24 hours. If you're looking for your next contribution, check out our help wanted issues ⚡