action-semantic-pull-request
action-semantic-pull-request copied to clipboard
docs: miss permission for statuses: write
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It's not really a feature, but I was unable to make the action work with only permissions.pull-requests: read
.
I had to add permissions.statuses: write
. Indeed, after trying a lot of combinations, I tried permissions: write-all
and noticed a new status check added.
I don't know why I seem to be the only one though 🤔 The action runs in a public repo with the Action GITHUB_TOKEN
.
Describe the solution you'd like
Add the mention in the docs. I'm willing to open a doc PR if you agree!
Describe alternatives you've considered
None.
Thanks for the report! In this repository the action works with the documented settings so I guess there's some difference in your environment?
Are you using the wip
feature, where write
access is necessary?
In any case, a reproduction would be necessary to discuss this further.
Hi @amannn,
Indeed I'm using it, and I have missed this mention 🤦♂️
I just ran a test with only pull-requests: write
and it passes only for pull_request_target.types: [ opened, reopened, synchronize ]
.
The workflow that runs for pull_request.types: [ opened, reopened, synchronize ]
still fails without statuses: write
.
What's weird though, is that both workflows runs fine with
permissions:
pull-requests: read
statuses: write
Any idea why ?
joining this :) Only when I added the statuses: write, it started working. It also doesn't throw any error if it misses permissions.
I'm into this discussion. My setup (it works!):
name: Semantic Pull Request
on:
pull_request_target:
types:
- opened
- edited
- synchronize
permissions:
pull-requests: read
statuses: write
jobs:
semantic-pull-request:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- name: Check pull request title
uses: amannn/[email protected]
env:
GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
with:
wip: true
@cebidhem - indeed, statuses: write
solves the problem: Resource not accessible by integration
error in my case. It seems to be legit, as the statuses
scope is somewhat related to the wip
input.
@cebidhem You didn't include edited
in types
. Why?