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

github actions Job status check functions - if expression comment needs more detail #4823

Closed
tonyhallett opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
actions This issue or pull request should be reviewed by the docs actions team

Comments

@tonyhallett
Copy link
Contributor

What is the current behavior?

Job status check functions states

You can use the following status check functions as expressions in if conditionals. If your if expression does not contain any of the status functions it will automatically result with success().

What changes are you suggesting?

You can use the following status check functions as expressions in if conditionals. If you do not supply an if condition there will be an implicit if condition using success(). If your if expression does not contain any of the status functions the success function will be ANDed with your condition. e.g success() && yourCondition

actions/runner#491

@tonyhallett tonyhallett added the engineering Will involve Docs Engineering label Mar 25, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot added the triage Do not begin working on this issue until triaged by the team label Mar 25, 2021
@chiedo chiedo removed the engineering Will involve Docs Engineering label Mar 25, 2021
@janiceilene
Copy link
Contributor

@tonyhallett Thanks for opening an issue! I'll get this triaged for the team to take a look 👀

@janiceilene janiceilene added actions This issue or pull request should be reviewed by the docs actions team and removed triage Do not begin working on this issue until triaged by the team labels Mar 26, 2021
@skedwards88
Copy link
Contributor

@tonyhallett Looking at the example in the issue that you linked, it seems that job_c was skipped because it needs job_b, which was skipped. I am going to close this issue, but feel free to re-open it if you disagree.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
actions This issue or pull request should be reviewed by the docs actions team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants