Codecov Report

Merging #5591 (e4166ac) into master (93b8d5d) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #5591   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   74.39%   74.39%           
=======================================
  Files         416      416           
  Lines       38088    38088           
  Branches     5637     5637           
=======================================
  Hits        28336    28336           
  Misses       9752     9752           

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 93b8d5d...f851dd4. Read the comment docs.

Duplicate functionality as #5577 but different approach.

p.s. Is the addition of a file named foo intentional?

p.s. Is the addition of a file named foo intentional?

Yea, that was just the change I made to show the behavior when [skip ci] is present. I'll remove that commit if we end up deciding to merge this.

I attempted to make this version a reusable action, but evidently we're not permitted to nest an action (like checkout) within another action. I think @pllim's javascript action is the way to go, though I'm in favor of setting an output and checking it with an if: so that we can avoid a red X failure when the CI is skipped.

Yeah, composite action isn't a thing yet though it is widely requested. You can wait, but I am not sure for how long.

I'm in favor of setting an output and checking it

Looks like there is an option to set output in https://github.com/actions/toolkit/tree/main/packages/core . But I have to think about this. Maybe I'll make it an option whether to fail or just set the output, but that also complicates the documentation and logic.

For now though, if you can endure a red X, my action already works, as illustrated in the other PR, in case you need it immediately.

Yeah, I don't think we want to endure red Xs for skipped CI. For jwst, the check should pass if CI is skipped.

Same is true for allowed failures, though that's a separate issue.

The way all this worked on Travis CI was very useful and we'd like to see that identical functionality in Github actions as well.

I would very much be in favor of the best of both these PRs getting put together.

That makes sense. I am looking into it.

I updated #5577 with your requested feature. Took me a while to get the output syntax right, but it seems to work now.

Ok thanks a lot! Closing this one.

Here is the issue about composite action actions/runner#646