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

Detect if translation files have changed #3

Open
NiklasBuchfink opened this issue Mar 21, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Detect if translation files have changed #3

NiklasBuchfink opened this issue Mar 21, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@NiklasBuchfink
Copy link
Member

Problem

  • You are working on a branch refactor/api that is unrelated to UI translations
  • Someone fixed a few lint reports on main
  • You get notified that you need to update the translations in refactor/api

Why?
Compared to main, refactor/api now has new lint errors. This could be fixed by merging main into refactor/api, but I don't care about translations because I'm working on something completely different.

Proposal

Ninja needs to check if the branch contains updated translation files. Only if there are changes in this branch it makes sense to create a comment.

@NiklasBuchfink NiklasBuchfink self-assigned this Mar 21, 2024
Copy link

linear bot commented Mar 21, 2024

Copy link

@niklas.buchfink also take into consideration the default merge that happens in github actions usually. as i understand the actions run on a simulated merge of the current branch into the basebranch, not on the tip of the branch they are configured on. in this scenario im not sure why there would be lint errors as the main branch merge would have the fixed translation. maybe your action does something not according to the configured merge strategy in github action?

Copy link
Member Author

@jan.johannes No merge is really simulated in Ninja. It just checks out the branches, collects all reports and compares if there are new ones in the branch.

Copy link
Member Author

Comparing the target to a merge simulation of the head with the head/target seems to make sense.

Copy link
Member Author

@jan.johannes I'm currently working on this. Can you elaborate how I can access the default merge. I would like to check this out and compare it with main.

Copy link
Member Author

Because of the pull_request_target. Since I can't comment without them, I have to merge them manually. I hope that the GitHub action can do this without a private key.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants