Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

update codecov action to latest #36

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024
Merged

update codecov action to latest #36

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion .github/workflows/test-coverage.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ jobs:
covr::to_cobertura(cov)
shell: Rscript {0}

- uses: codecov/codecov-action@v4
- uses: codecov/codecov-action@v4.5
with:
fail_ci_if_error: ${{ github.event_name != 'pull_request' && true || false }}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need the part && true || false ? Isn't it the same as just github.event_name != 'pull_request' ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know, this is the default in r-lib actions https://github.com/r-lib/actions/tree/v2-branch/examples#test-coverage-workflow

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, after some reading: it seems that boolean input arguments of composite workflows are defined in the GH actions in a weird way (actions/runner#2238). So let's keep it AS IS

file: ./cobertura.xml
Expand Down