Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
4 changes: 1 addition & 3 deletions .github/workflows/release-please.yml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ on:
name: release-please

permissions:
contents: write
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure about this, but per https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/workflow-syntax#permissions, "If you specify the access for any of these permissions, all of those that are not specified are set to none", which means contents will be none for steps that use GITHUB_TOKEN? Docs for trusted publishing (https://docs.npmjs.com/trusted-publishers#step-2-configure-your-cicd-workflow) have contents: read in the example, so perhaps it would be safer to change write -> read instead of just removing the line?

Copy link
Member Author

@lumirlumir lumirlumir Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it would still work well if we remove contents: write or contents: read for the following reasons:


You can use permissions to modify the default permissions granted to the GITHUB_TOKEN

According to https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/workflow-syntax#permissions, the permissions field applies to GITHUB_TOKEN, not to Personal Access Tokens (fine-grained or classic) such as WORKFLOW_PUSH_BOT_TOKEN. (This change now removes the use of GITHUB_TOKEN.)

As far as I know, the permissions for WORKFLOW_PUSH_BOT_TOKEN are set when the token is created, not by the explicit permissions field in GitHub Actions. For example, with the following token settings (the example below shows a classic token):

image

Docs for trusted publishing (https://docs.npmjs.com/trusted-publishers#step-2-configure-your-cicd-workflow) have contents: read in the example, so perhaps it would be safer to change write -> read instead of just removing the line?

As far as I know, content: write or contents: read aren't related to OIDC; only id-token is:

image

For example, when I publish my personal open-source packages, I only use id-token: write, and it works fine without contents: read.

Ref: https://github.com/lumirlumir/npm-clang-format-node/blob/5eeae2da116c405395eaf13391500c18e416f421/.github/workflows/publish.yml#L7-L8

image

Also, in https://github.com/eslint/css/pull/330/changes, we removed the contents: write field as shown below, yet the auto-created workflow was generated correctly and the CI ran successfully.

image

Given the reasons above, I think this would work well; however, if you’re still unsure, I’m happy to follow your guidance and update the workflow to use contents: read.

pull-requests: write
id-token: write

jobs:
Expand All @@ -17,7 +15,7 @@ jobs:
- uses: googleapis/release-please-action@v4
id: release
with:
token: ${{secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN}}
token: ${{ secrets.WORKFLOW_PUSH_BOT_TOKEN }}

# Output which releases were created
- name: Output release info
Expand Down