fix: only run Asana jobs if the secrets are present #14
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks. We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from `if` blocks: actions/runner#520
bklebe
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2023
paulswartz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2023
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks. We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from `if` blocks: actions/runner#520 The key differences between this and #14 are: - typo: should be `outputs` in the `if` blocks - more explicity check for the secrets in a Bash script, so we can see the output - use `yes` instead of `true` as the value to more clearly distinguish the value from a true boolean
paulswartz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2023
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks. We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from `if` blocks: actions/runner#520 The key differences between this and #14 are: - typo: should be `outputs` in the `if` blocks - more explicity check for the secrets in a Bash script, so we can see the output - use `yes` instead of `true` as the value to more clearly distinguish the value from a true boolean
paulswartz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2023
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks. We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from `if` blocks: actions/runner#520 The key differences between this and #14 are: - typo: should be `outputs` in the `if` blocks - more explicity check for the secrets in a Bash script, so we can see the output - use `yes` instead of `true` as the value to more clearly distinguish the value from a true boolean
paulswartz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2023
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks. We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from `if` blocks: actions/runner#520 The key differences between this and #14 are: - typo: should be `outputs` in the `if` blocks - more explicity check for the secrets in a Bash script, so we can see the output - use `yes` instead of `true` as the value to more clearly distinguish the value from a true boolean
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This avoids failures when running on PRs from forks.
We do it in this convoluted way because you can't access secrets directly from
ifblocks: actions/runner#520You can see it working in this action run: https://github.com/mbta/api/actions/runs/5469630640/jobs/9958897744