-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
ROX-20232: Unify PR and push PipelineRun
-s
#1526
Conversation
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
502b4a8
to
1c7f92f
Compare
PipelineRun
-s
since this name shows up in GitHub checks UI and I think "build" is more direct.
PipelineRun
-sPipelineRun
-s
/retest |
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 change LGTM.
What about the tags though? Should we do implement it the same way as in the collector repository?
In this PR or another one, both is fine for me.
I suppose you mean https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ROX-24116 . I want to do it in a separate PR because the approach may be slightly different. I'll try to get by without additional |
After seeing very little difference between
<blah>-push.yaml
and<blah>-pull-request.yaml
, I went ahead and merged the two.build.appstudio.redhat.com/pull_request_number: '{{pull_request_number}}'
remains literally that on pushes as opposed to PRs where{{pull_request_number}}
gets replaced with a number (like1526
here). I think, it should be fine since it's not something that gets in a final image.The only thing I regret is that the activity page would not let easily distinguish pushes from pull requests.