-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 457
Explicit annotation reporter #1623
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
Explicit annotation reporter #1623
Conversation
It looks as though the |
@shogo82148 Is this functionality of interest? |
Yes, I'm interested. |
550c9d0
to
9a4b6d6
Compare
@shogo82148 All tests are passing for me locally. Please approve workflows on this PR so that I can see other checks |
27a3a73
to
fc351ea
Compare
fc351ea
to
0b9c1a2
Compare
I should also mention that we've been running a fork containing this change with Vale since December to great effect. Example failure: https://github.com/Kong/docs.konghq.com/actions/runs/7462192691 |
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.
LGTM
Hi, @mheap! We merged your PR to reviewdog! 🐶 We just invited you to join the @reviewdog organization on GitHub. Thanks again! |
Love this! Just became aware of this change. Clever approach 😄 |
Feature Description
This PR adds a new
github-pr-annotations
reporter which bypasses the checks API and uses the existing GitHub annotations fallback to report failures.It should resolve #403 and allow people to attach annotations in the same check that runs reviewdog.
Testing
I've updated all existing tests so that they pass again. I tried to add a test for the GH Actions annotation format specifically, but
core.Error
ingo-actions-toolkit
is hardcoded to write toos.stdout
which means I can't capture the output to write assertionsChecklist