Improve synchronization process when no pull request is needed

[DoomsCoder]

Note

Syntax research for the GitHub API was assisted by Gemini-3-flash

Purpose / Description

I fixed the translation sync workflow so it doesn't error out when there aren't any string to update

Fixes

• Fixes Translation sync: improve result when no Pull Request is necessary #20853

Approach

I used github-script to check for staged changes and manually trigger a neutral check result via the GitHub API if the tree is clean

Checklist

• You have a descriptive commit message with a short title (first line, max 50 chars).
• You have commented your code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• You have performed a self-review of your own code
• UI changes: include screenshots of all affected screens (in particular showing any new or changed strings)
• UI Changes: You have tested your change using the Google Accessibility Scanner

[david-allison]

Could this be tested?

[DoomsCoder]

Yes, I can test it running workflow on my fork. I'll temporarily use GITHUB_TOKEN to bypass the missing organisation token secrets

[DoomsCoder]

I have sucessfully tested the workflow. You can see the results.

[david-allison]

Can I confirm it looks like this on the status preview in the actions tab (screenshot from Google images; 6 years ago on a different screen)

I wouldn't have expected a green tick like I see in your screenshots

EDIT: I had a quick chat with Claude and it looks like this may not be possible from a workflow perspective; only with the checks API:

• https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9875

If it's not possible, let's move to the issue, discuss another fix (GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY or similar)

[DoomsCoder]

@david-allison I'm sorry for confusion. I really took screenshot from my own fork Action tab and I definitely didn't take from Google images. I used Checks API to create a neutral status, which is why its appeared that in testing

[DoomsCoder]

EDIT: I had a quick chat with Claude and it looks like this may not be possible from a workflow perspective; only with the checks API:

• https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9875

If it's not possible, let's move to the issue, discuss another fix (GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY or similar)

Should i stick with Checks API for neutral status(current approach) or switch to GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY for simple approach?

[david-allison]

I know the screenshot was yours, I checked and I saw the effort you put in, it's truly appreciated.

I strongly suspect it won't be possible, so let's go with another approach:

• Consider an obviously named step, then skipping the remainder of the work if there's no changes
  • A developer can quickly see from the
• Consider options to output text to GitHub. I personally use the step summary, but I haven't researched what's available

---

Whatever you do will be better than what we have now, and it's truly appreciated!

[DoomsCoder]

@david-allison I have tested the step summary approach on my fork. You can check it out in the screenshot

[DoomsCoder]

Windows test failure seems unrelated to my code changes

[Alok-Silswal]

Windows test failure seems unrelated to my code changes

Have you tested this?

If no, then try running unit tests without your code changes.

Saying this because I highly doubt that earlier commits would not have been accepted without all unit tests passing.

[david-allison]

Unit tests were flaky.

[DoomsCoder]

@david-allison I updated the code. See if you like it

[david-allison]

This is excellent, thank you!

[mikehardy]

Thanks! In general I like the idea / the purpose of the PR - definitely needs a different take on the conflict resolution, and an idea on compacting the implementation tho

[DoomsCoder]

@mikehardy I've updated the code. Please see if this is the compact implementation you were looking for

[DoomsCoder]

@mikehardy Could you please review the updated code when you have time ?

[mikehardy]

seems good to go now, thank you!