I'm thinking atm, and will try to add `main` and `template` to the auto-build targets.
I'm thinking atm, and will try to add
main and template to the auto-build targets.
AAlternatively...
XWas just about to comment that.
XThen we'll just remove
mainWe could also just remove the list of branches to make every branch build no matter its name. Only
live gets published to GHCR. So that may be the most desirable?AI am pretty sure this https://i.imgur.com/7EW7t9D.png list of
branches: was the old-school "protect against push to GHCR" idea before I changed it to only push live.XWell, I don't know. If there's some in-repo development on a custom branch. I guess I should start making my PRs from a custom repo too to not pollute the template?
AI think removing
branches: filtering for the auto-build triggers would solve that. So that way every branch gets built no matter its name. We're exactly as safe as before, since the deploy/sign steps only run for live.AAnd the builds seem to happen in the PR sender's own home.
XSure, do it. I guess stressing GHA shouldn't cause any issues.
AHmm, you make a point actually. Do we WANT anything except
templatelive to build? If we want all other branches to be non-building, I could just list the exact branches.APeople can still trigger manual builds on all other branches by manually triggering the workflow (that's the
workflow_dispatch: trigger).A
So... let's list main, template and live.XWell, we don't exactly want-want it but it shouldn't cause any issues.
AYeah. This solution sounds good, I'll refactor the docs a little bit around it.
XGreat
AI was just finished, but then I realized we may wanna do this:
- Pushes: Auto-builds on
- PRs: Auto-builds every branch, by removing the
- Pushes: Auto-builds on
live, maintemplate- PRs: Auto-builds every branch, by removing the
branches: filter. This is what I just realized that we may need to do. Since it turned out that PRs run in the SOURCE repo/branch, not the target. So PRs from let's say branch: fix-foo -> merge into startingpoint:main would fail to run its GHA if we don't remove that filter. If PRs are working the way it seems.A@hermmm I found the issue. It's a bug that will affect every PR from old forks. 
ALet's say people forked a while ago and their
That file is not properly setup to allow builds of branches.
So they make a branch
Their old
mainThat file is not properly setup to allow builds of branches.
So they make a branch
fix-something and submit it to you.Their old
mainfix-something and therefore nothing happens. 0 actions are listed.AI fixed it by fast-forwarding my own
mainSo PRs run the local
mainYes primary branch of the local fork workflow is what runs inside PRs. @j0rge may be very interested to hear this too.
AI converted the PR to a draft to stop the merge while I edit a comment that was misleading regarding this fact in build.yml.
XWe'll just have to instruct potential contributors with this issue to update their main branches
AYeah I added a note about that in build.yml too. It's ready for final check/merge.
AThis discovery also gives us another good reason why forks should keep an untouched "upstream main branch". Haha.
XTrue, 'xcept when working you'd probably want to set
live as the main branch for it to be the one displayed when opening the repoAOh yeah true, so they'd still have to rebase. Good thing my comment is phrased that way:
A"primary branch" is mentioned, phew.
AI was really surprised that PRs build using the fork's primary workflow. It feels very backwards, since that means upstream has no control over the workflow checks of PRs. I could then write a funny workflow that just succeeds instantly, and fool any upstream repo into accepting the "successful build".
ABut it makes some sense too, otherwise people could hog the upstream repo's build queue for their own PR spam.
ATo fix this, I really think GitHub should be using the fork's build queue + upstream's primary workflow. That'd be a good fix.
XYeah. But I'd've thought it at least used the divergent branch's workflow instead of the forks main branch's one
AYeah, that was the most nuts thing to me. Literally not even using the PR's own branch's workflow.
A@hermmm
AGot done just in time to watch some TV. 
AAh I see your comment, will do that first!
XStill got some complaints for ya!
AOkay I'll wait and do those now.
AI noticed that the readme uses "container image" in other places. Should I call it (the mentioned line) "published image" or "published container image"?
XI think container image is alright in the README, cause that's what it technically is. I think either is fine and I'd go with "published image" for the mentioned line.
AAgreed, it reads more nicely too.
A@hermmm The fix is pushed. Was there anything else that needs doing before TV?
XYou're good for TV!
ASweet, time to see episode 2 of The Wire! Hope you have a nice evening in Finland too!
Hope you have a nice evening in Finland too!XEverything is done and dusted, well, it never is, but regarding this PR yes.
XThanks, you too!
ALast minute thought: I just realized why forks don't run upstream's workflow when submitting PRs. Because that'd be the reverse security exploit: Then the upstream could create malicious actions that run in every fork that submits a PR, using the fork's secrets/credentials.
Likewise, PRs don't run on the upstream/target's build machine either, because that'd allow PRs to run exploits on the target infrastructure.
So yeah @j0rge : All Pull requests in all our repos run with the GitHub Actions workflow of the primary branch of the fork, using the fork's secrets/environments, using the fork's build queue/runner.
Therefore, we need to remind people to sync their fork's primary branch's workflow with upstream whenever they submit PRs.
Likewise, PRs don't run on the upstream/target's build machine either, because that'd allow PRs to run exploits on the target infrastructure.
So yeah @j0rge : All Pull requests in all our repos run with the GitHub Actions workflow of the primary branch of the fork, using the fork's secrets/environments, using the fork's build queue/runner.
Therefore, we need to remind people to sync their fork's primary branch's workflow with upstream whenever they submit PRs.
A
A^ Now it's time for The Wire!
Jyeah we can't run stuff on forks and PRs
