-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
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
Fixed .editorconfig and added validation to workflows #372
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
FYI we are planning to merge below PR before all others, which will generate quite some conflicts I'm afraid. |
I think it would be beneficial if you reset your branch to pre-fix and then reapply all warning fixes. |
@Metadorius Yes, I'll do it a little later |
I updated this PR and consider it is done |
Nightly build for this pull request:
|
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.
The council ™️ concluded that the style checks should absolutely NOT fail a workflow. Instead look into making a problem matcher and registering it so that it displays issues as inline annotations (same applies for Phobos one as it's quite annoying to get failed runs just because of a stray trailing space): https://github.com/actions/toolkit/blob/main/docs/problem-matchers.md
Currently, GitHub Actions limit the annotation count in a workflow run.
If your workflow may exceed these annotation counts, consider filtering of the log messages which the Problem Matcher is exposed to (e.g. by PR touched files, lines, or other). |
I think those counts are reasonable and we can work with that. Not sure why you closed the PR though? |
I'm not sure why it closed either. Possibly missclick |
We use this workflow at Phobos and it works well