| 16:16 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Again |
| 16:17 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | bakkot ljharb |
| 16:19 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Maybe because I pushed to a PR of mine that had the wrong version of the action? |
| 16:19 | <ljharb> | yes, that would do it - always rebase before pushing |
| 16:19 | <ljharb> | i'll fix the branch, one sec |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | But why run deploy from a PR? |
| 16:20 | <ljharb> | for PR previews. an older version of the action had a bug |
| 16:20 | <ljharb> | ok, give it a minute and the page should hopefully be fixed |
| 16:20 | <bakkot> | I will rename the script so this doesn't happen |
| 16:21 | <bakkot> | I wanted to do a better fix but haven't had time |
| 16:21 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | I'm confused about how this can do it though. I don't have write permission to the repo, so what is in my fork shouldn't matter? |
| 16:21 | <ljharb> | actions can have that permission even if you don't, i believe |
| 16:22 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Oh I see, we run on pull_request_target but running the script from the PR branch and not the script committed in the target branch |
| 16:23 | <bakkot> | Yeah |
| 16:23 | <ljharb> | we could rename the secret and that'd fix it |
| 16:23 | <bakkot> | Renaming the script will also fix it |
| 16:23 | <bakkot> | Better fix is to use the build/deploy scripts from the main repo also but that takes more work |
| 16:23 | <bakkot> | and debugging github actions is very annoying so I haven't done it yet |
| 16:24 | <ljharb> | renaming the script would let someone add a workflow to their own PR and push anything they wanted up there, by adding the old script name, no? (if they targeted an old enough commit on main) |
| 16:24 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | For ecma426 we only checkout spec.emu and img/ from the PR branch, and for the rest we use files on main: https://github.com/tc39/ecma426/blob/6f45f6fd5884424b5131e2709aff833fa3327e2e/.github/workflows/auto-publish.yml#L28 |
| 16:24 | <bakkot> | script only runs for tc39 members or when explicitly requested by a maintainer |
| 16:24 | <bakkot> | I am not worried about tc39 members trying to mess with things |
| 16:25 | <ljharb> | fair |
| 16:25 | <bakkot> | we definitely want to use ecmarkup from the PR branch at least, because much of what previews are for is confirming ecmarkup updates worked as expected |
| 16:29 | <bakkot> | https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3697 for now |