Test report doesn't appear in expected place in GitHub UI
tsimbalar opened this issue · 25 comments
Hi,
thanks a lot for this Action 👍
We currently have multiple GitHub Actions Workflows (main.yaml , lint-yaml.yaml etc ).
When using the action inside of the main.yaml, the test results appear under the lint-yaml results 🤔
Not 100% sure what is causing it
our step, within main.yaml looks like
- name: Report PR Test results
uses: dorny/test-reporter@v1
if: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' && (success() || failure()) }}
with:
name: jest Tests
path: reports/jest-*.xml
reporter: jest-junit
Here is a (sanitized) output of the step :
1s
Run dorny/test-reporter@v1
with:
name: jest Tests
path: reports/jest-*.xml
reporter: jest-junit
list-suites: all
list-tests: all
max-annotations: 10
fail-on-error: true
token: ***
env:
// snipped
Action was triggered by pull_request: using SHA from head of source branch
Check runs will be created with SHA=8d1d74409581269df26b4df491b55819597d9501
Listing all files tracked by git
/usr/bin/git ls-files -z
// ...
Found 190 files tracked by GitHub
Using test report parser 'jest-junit'
Creating test report jest Tests
Processing test results from reports/jest-junit.xml
Creating report summary
Generating check run summary
Creating annotations
Creating check run with conclusion success
Check run create response: 201
Check run URL: https://api.github.com/repos/XXXX/YYYY/check-runs/2005347522
Check run HTML: https://github.com/XXXX/YYYY/runs/2005347522
This seems to be a GitHub Actions "feature". More details in mikepenz/action-junit-report#40 and https://github.community/t/github-actions-status-checks-created-on-incorrect-check-suite-id/16685 .
Oh, I see.
Thanks for the reply 👍
Unfortunately as @lhotari already commented - it's a GitHub "feature".
Another post on this is here: https://github.community/t/specify-check-suite-when-creating-a-checkrun/118380
Until it's fixed on GitHub side, the best I can do is to mention it in README.
Just a quick thought (and sorry if this has been discussed before):
Instead of creating a check, couldn't you use the same mechanism that https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact uses (under the assumption that you can upload other file types than .zip files)?
This would solve the problem in this issue. It would also solve the problem that this action requires the checks: write permission (which is not available for pull requests from forks).
I understand that this change would (most likely) worsen the UX of this action - but on the other hand, I'd argue that you don't need to view the test report that often (usually only if some test has failed), so this change could be ok.
This also happen when you have a schedule trigger workflow.
The test report is not attached to each of the run.
Maybe the new job summary (https://github.blog/2022-05-09-supercharging-github-actions-with-job-summaries/) can be used to:
- display they success/fail count like in the blog post
- display link to the check run in order to easier find it?
Hi! Thanks for the work on the reporter!
Tiny UX request regarding this issue
Would it be possible to move the URL link out of the dropdown?
(Here's what it looks like currently with the dropdown)
Given that the check appears in an unexpected place on a different workflow (due to the preexisting github shortcoming) - it would be nice to have more obvious breadcrumbs (the HTML link) visible without having to open the arrow - to help new folks find the errors.
I see that there is a PR to add the "job summary" feature to an unofficial fork of this action: phoenix-actions/test-reporting#21
The same issue for me
+1 for option to publish as job summary, instead of check
+1 for option to publish as job summary, instead of check
can we get the 'Check run HTML' URL as output of this report??
+1 for option to publish as job summary, instead of check
+1 for option to publish as job summary, instead of check
Job summaries are already used on main. We just need a new release.
@timcassell Do you know when a new release is going to be cut? We're looking forward to this fix.
No clue, I'm not a maintainer.
@jozefizso or @ritchxu, would one of you feel comfortable publishing a new release?
😕 Unfortunately I can't publish new releases due to lack of permissions, will defer to @jozefizso
Any updates regarding the new release?
@jozefizso / @dorny Could we cut a new release to resolve this issue?