labeler
labeler copied to clipboard
Fix 'sync-labels' setting
Closes https://github.com/actions/labeler/issues/104
Following syntax at https://github.com/actions/toolkit/blob/master/packages/glob/README.md#recommended-action-inputs
Thanks for the patch, @epuertat! Labeler was behaving incorrectly and your changes corrected that behavior. I took the liberty of updating to the current state of main branch, and adding tests.
What this means is we're in the weird position where Doing The Right Thing means a breaking change, since labeler will now behave differently with the same inputs out there in the wild. A load-bearing bug.
IMO this necessitates a v4 release and a big callout in the changelog.
Before
Before this change: if you provide literally any value for sync-labels
, labeler would Sync Labels. (In particular, if you had sync-labels: false
, labeler would actually Sync Labels. Yikes.)
After
After this change: you must provide true
to get Sync Labels behavior. Providing false
will NOT Sync Labels. (And any other value will be treated like false
.)
Thanks for taking care of the tests, @pje!
@pje Any ETA on merging and deploying a new version? We are considering removing the action in SciPy because the sync mechanism is annoying us. I really like the idea of this action and would like to keep it 😃
Hey. Can you please merge/release this?
Anything we can do to help move this forward and get this merged?
I am sad to say that due to this, we (SciPy) dropped this actions. Hope that this get solved at some point so we can reconsider.
@tupui the workaround for this is fairly easy, you just need to set sync-labels
to an empty string:
sync-labels: ""
Obviously, this should be fixed but no need to drop the action when there's workaround available :P
@tupui the workaround for this is fairly easy, you just need to set
sync-labels
to an empty string:sync-labels: ""
Obviously, this should be fixed but no need to drop the action when there's workaround available :P
Oh thanks! We sadly dropped it a few months ago already because there was no action there... I just got notified about this with the recent message and thought I would comment again to say we had to take action–as I feared we might need to.
A "hack" might not make our maintainer team confident I am afraid. I will keep an eye on this.
Hi @pje,
This is a small gentle up: is there anything to be done for this fix to be merged?
Major libraries' CI (like SciPy's and scikit-learn's) would largely benefit from this fix. :pray:
Hello @epuertat!
Thank you for the contribution and sorry for the late review!
I left a comment, please take a look. Also, please rebuild dist
folder and resolve conflicts.
@epuertat: Thank you for this contribution, I am looking forward to it being integrated. Are you still working on it? If not, can I supersede it, @MaksimZhukov? :slightly_smiling_face:
@jjerphan @MaksimZhukov @adam-azarchs: please feel free to take over and move forward with this.
Hello @epuertat ! Thank you for the response! I am closing the PR in favor of this one. @jjerphan please find the details in that PR.