Doc building CI ran on my fork ...
Closed this issue · 5 comments
Prerequisites
- I have read the Contributing Guidelines.
- I have read the Code of Conduct.
Category
Documentation
Priority
Low
Description
It seems docs built and uploaded from my fork - Is this wanted?
https://github.com/cooperlees/meta-terragraph/runs/7400340300?check_suite_focus=true
Steps to reproduce
Fork the repo and push a commit to trigger CI.
Additional information (logs, etc.)
https://github.com/cooperlees/meta-terragraph/runs/7400340300?check_suite_focus=true
Your environment
- Software version: l33t version
- Firmware version: Super l33t version
- Hardware: GitHub Actions instance.
External tickets
69
I have no strong opinion either way, though I think GitHub prompts you to enable Actions on your fork?
It looks like we could disable specific workflows/jobs by adding:
jobs:
xx:
if: github.repository == 'terragraph/meta-terragraph'I'm most concerned about the "Deploy to GitHub Pages" step and it passing ... What's it deploying and where?
The workflow writes to the gh-pages branch in your forked repo. If GitHub pages were enabled, then the website would be available at https://cooperlees.github.io/meta-terragraph. This URL 404s because GitHub pages are not enabled for your fork.
Ahh ok. I don't think we should dump that into people's GitHub pages. So maybe we just add Jeffrey's suggestion + allow people to remove it if they do want that for testing in their personal forks.
p.s. It's very sad that terragraph.com is IPv4 only :(.
I think we'll just leave it like this given that a user needs to enable both GitHub Actions and GitHub Pages manually, so there are probably no surprises. I still don't see any clear reason to go either way, so might as well save some code.