Re: [PATCH 1/1] ci: new github-action for git-l10n code review

["Jean-Noël AVILA" <jn.avila@free.fr>]

Le mardi 24 août 2021, 11:27:44 CEST Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> Hi Junio,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> > >> For a push event, it will scan commits one by one. If a commit does not
> > >> look like a l10n commit (no file in "po/" has been changed), it will
> > >> immediately fail without checking for further commits. While for a
> > >> pull_request event, all new introduced commits will be scanned.
> > >>
> > >> "git-po-helper" will generate two kinds of suggestions, errors and
> > >> warnings. A l10n contributor should try to fix all the errors, and
> > >> should pay attention to the warnings. All the errors and warnings will
> > >> be reported in the last step of the l10n workflow as two message groups.
> > >> For a pull_request event, will create additional comments in pull
> > >> request to report the result.
> > >
> > > It is a good idea to automate this.
> > >
> > > I am a bit concerned that the `ci-config` approach, even if we use it in
> > > the Git project itself, is quite cumbersome to use, though. So I hope that
> > > we can find an alternative solution.
> > >
> > > One such solution could be to make the `git-po-helper` job contingent on
> > > part of the repository name. For example:
> > >
> > >   git-po-helper:
> > >     if: endsWith(github.repository, '/git-po')
> > >     [...]
> > >
> > > would skip the job unless the target repository's name is `git-po`.
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> > Can this be made into a matter purely local to git-l10n/git-po
> > repository and not git/git repository? I am wondering if we can ee if
> > the current repository is git-l10n/git-po or its fork and run it only if
> > that is true.
> 
> The biggest problem is that there are forks of `git-l10n/git-po` that
> accept PRs in their own right. That is what I tried to address by using
> just the repository name, without the org/user prefix.
> 
> Ciao,
> Dscho
> 

Well, I'm in this case, plus my repo is a fork of git/git. 

Would it not possible to formally require the presence of a "dumb" secret to run this rule? 

JN