Skip to content
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

Fix variable reference #16

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 25, 2024
Merged

Fix variable reference #16

merged 4 commits into from
Sep 25, 2024

Conversation

kequach
Copy link
Collaborator

@kequach kequach commented Sep 1, 2024

Variable reference apparently changed from GITHUB_TOKEN to TOKEN.
image

@kequach
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kequach commented Sep 1, 2024

Hmm, this still doesn't work even with the correct variable reference due to repository policies:
image

I see 3 options here:

  1. We fix the pipeline to work with new policy settings
  2. We change the policy settings
  3. We remove the gh-pages

@J535D165
Copy link
Member

J535D165 commented Sep 2, 2024

Thanks for pointing out option 3. The GitHub landing page has improved over the last year and is now easier to read for non-coders. Personally, I'm never using the website.

@jelletreep
Copy link
Member

jelletreep commented Sep 2, 2024

Would be fine with option 3.

To fix it, i think you now have to give the token permission to write:

permissions:
  contents: write

https://github.com/JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action

It is also possible to store the website as artifact (instead of using the gh-pages branch):
https://github.com/actions/deploy-pages
In this case you would have to change the repository settings for github pages.

Happy to update the workflow if we don't go for option 3

@kequach
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kequach commented Sep 2, 2024

I personally find option 3 sufficient. The readme is totally fine. The main benefit the website had was the additional ToC to navigate, but as Jonathan pointed out, the READMEs on Github improved a lot. You can now navigate in the Readme too:
image
if you are also fine with that, I'll just remove the website

@jelletreep
Copy link
Member

Yes, I am totally fine with removing the website!

@kequach
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kequach commented Sep 3, 2024

I removed the relevant stuff, should be good to merge

Copy link
Member

@jelletreep jelletreep left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @kequach for updating the PR!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this workflow meant to sort and update the README.md if it is not properly sorted? If so, then I think we should add a commit action to commit the result

.github/workflows/sort_readme.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
@kequach
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kequach commented Sep 4, 2024

@jelletreep good point, I think the commit/push was implicit with the deployment of the page. Haven't thought about that

@kequach kequach added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 25, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit ae9500c Sep 25, 2024
@J535D165
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants