add compiled credentials to outputs#137
Conversation
gr2m
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say that's outside of the scope of this action. We can add it as a usage exapmle to the readme though, to show how to create a committer string from the provided outputs.
|
shame really, I'm writing an gitops action for developers and it will be so much easier to use committer output field rather than asking them to construct it by themselves |
you will have to document usage of your action anyway, which will include the use of this action. Adding another step to create a new output for the committer really doesn't add much, your users will end up copy-and-pasting your usage example anyway. Here is an example - uses: actions/create-github-app-token@main
id: app-auth
with:
app-id: ${{ vars.GR2M_GITHUB_APP_ID }}
private-key: ${{ secrets.GR2M_GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY }}
- id: committer
run: echo "string=${{steps.app-auth.outputs.app-slug}}[bot] <${{ steps.app-auth.outputs.installation-id }}+${{ steps.app-auth.outputs.app-slug }}[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
- run: echo "committer string is ${{steps.committer.outputs.string}}"I'll add that to our README |
|
there you go, let us know what you think: #142 |
|
@gr2m thank you, it looks good. I'll close this pr |
|
🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 1.10.2 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
This is the iteration of #105
I'd like to have compiled credentials as an output. I'm not sure about commiter, it's just how I'll be using it. Perhaps credentials is a better name?
My use case is that the following quite lengthy:
And I'd like to use something less verbose, like this:
Im going to use this credentials as a commiter value for the gitops commits, while keeping the author as pull-request authors
What do you think of this idea? Are you open to this addition? if you are open to the idea and credentials is acceptable name, I will update docs and test to finalise the pull-request