-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
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
Handle pull requests from forks #4762
Conversation
e29d4f3
to
0159298
Compare
@@ -42,16 +42,25 @@ jobs: | |||
|
|||
- run: yarn run lint | |||
|
|||
- uses: paambaati/[email protected] | |||
- name: Run Coverage Report |
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.
This is the easiest way to bypass uploading a coverage report/storybook for pull requests from a fork. There would be value in getting both reports but the effort required to set that up along with the potential security risk (if we added extra secrets/forget) makes this the logical choice for now IMO.
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 other route is along the lines of #2644 |
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.
Looks good!
0159298
to
af24868
Compare
Code Climate has analyzed commit af24868 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (85% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 95.0% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
Needed for #4616
The continuous integration workflow will currently always fail for forked pull requests. This is due to secrets not being passed to forks.
Comments inline.
If we start getting a lot of outside contributions then we can revisit.