Add warning status for checks #11592
Replies: 12 comments 1 reply
-
@rousseldenis you should copy over the entire description, possibly reworded or augmented with feedback from the comments, because it's uncomfortable to have to go over the linked issue every time in order to see / remember what the subject and justification actually is. And since the isaacs repo has been archived it's not even possible to react (let alone comment), so the link really has no value other than archival. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
One use case for this would be visual diffs, where a detected difference requires review but doesn't necessarily mean there's an error. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I would use this also on our terraform repository, on cases where |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This would also be useful for unit test coverage checks, where we don't want to require a coverage percentage to merge but we still want to be alerted to low coverage. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It is also useful when testing for future versions to be supported (e.g.: Python 3.12 as of today). CI should not break if a beta version fails, but should warn that some attention is needed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Any update on this ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is there any new information about this feature? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
any updates on this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The general case for this would be any check that fails, but isn't set to block merging. You could drop the required to merge wording. Anyone visual can't see passed the red to read that anyway. I've worked with devs that been looking at PRs for years with red Xs and didn't realize the check was merge optional. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This would help enable a setup where only CI blocks code that generates warnings from merge. Something like talked about here https://embeddedartistry.com/blog/2017/05/22/werror-is-not-your-friend/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Our usecase is around implementing new checks for example say we implement a CVE checker, but don't want to make it blocking out the gate. we currently have to mark it as green which results in people forgetting to actually action them to a green state to start enforcing the checks. I feel if it was always "warning" (orange) people would atleast notice it every now and then providing a nudge |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is smth that would really be nice |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Referring to this issue: isaacs/github#1465
Should be a great feature!
Thanks
UPDATE: This is the original issue description:
When creating a status on a commit, there are only four choices: error, failure, pending, or success.
https://developer.github.com/v3/repos/statuses/
It would be useful to have a level called "warning". If a commit has statuses that are all success or warning, then an orange exclamation mark should be used to annotate the commit, instead of a red X. If there is at least one failure, then you should get the red X.
This would clean up the implementation of "recommended but not required" checks for PRs. For example, in unicode-org/icu, we have a recommended policy that a PR contains only one commit. We currently have this set up as a non-required status that fails, which causes the whole PR to get the red X, even when all of the other checks are green.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions