-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 905
feat: Refactor workflows #2946
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: Refactor workflows #2946
Conversation
4a5fcf5 to
28fe41d
Compare
28fe41d to
0eb0164
Compare
0eb0164 to
28f7574
Compare
nickfloyd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! I love the collapse of jobs ❤️ - approving pending completion / this coming out of draft status.
@nickfloyd the draft status is required until the repo level changes are made to keep secrets isolated from pull request target workflows. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added some comments
28f7574 to
c5ad7c1
Compare
|
@stevehipwell I am pretty sure we're going to need an action to support the following: Using: Through rulesets I belive I can only restrict who can create version tags and not necessarily where - I might be either missing the whole picture of what you're thinking or you might know a way we could via rulesets. Let me know. |
c5ad7c1 to
76c83e1
Compare
@nickfloyd I'm not actually sure what I meant when I wrote that. I suspect I got ahead of myself, as it'd require a check that only runs on the relevant branches to be run and used as a constraint. Shall we leave that for a future change? I'm just about to update the acceptance tests to run on the releasable branches to catch anything that can't be tested on the PR. That said it may be worth making the default ruleset use the following settings?
|
76c83e1 to
eaf9902
Compare
|
@nickfloyd this is currently pretty good once the final repo changes are made. Would you like me to add a check in the PR workflow to detect if there are any unexpected secrets and error out so they can't be leaked by TF code? |
Yes please. I'll try to get the remaining items wrapped. |
eaf9902 to
eec7c90
Compare
|
|
||
| - name: Check secrets | ||
| env: | ||
| INPUT_SECRETS: ${{ toJSON(secrets) }} |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Excessive Secrets Exposure Medium
toJSON(secrets)
|
|
||
| - name: Check secrets | ||
| env: | ||
| INPUT_SECRETS: ${{ toJSON(secrets) }} |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Excessive Secrets Exposure Medium
toJSON(secrets)
eec7c90 to
40283d8
Compare
Signed-off-by: Steve Hipwell <[email protected]>
40283d8 to
adfecc5
Compare
|
@nickfloyd I've added the guard clause for the secrets, this allows the defined secrets and any secrets with the
|

Resolves #2425
This PR requires the following changes before it should be merged.
release-v*to maintainers - donev*pattern to maintainers (or only admins?)releaseenvironment and protect it to tags with the patternv*- donereleaseenvironmentacctestlabel - doneacctest-dotcom&acctest-ghesenvironments and require that they be approved by maintainers - done and doneDOTCOM_TEST_USER_TOKENtoacctest-dotcomenvironment (created a new token - we'll need to verify if the fine grained settings are correct).GHES_TEST_USER_TOKENtoacctest-ghesenvironment (created a new token - we'll need to verify if the fine grained settings are correct).GHES_TEST_SERVER_HOSTto varsPost Merge
Post Next Release
Before the change?
After the change?
Pull request checklist
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Please see our docs on breaking changes to help!