Conversation
This depends on a few changes in act and act_runner: https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/272 https://gitea.com/gitea/act/pulls/73
Referencing it could cause inconsistencies if it changes later.
GiteaBot
added
the
lgtm/need 2
github-actions
bot
added
modifies/api
routers/api/actions/runner/utils.go
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ | |||
| // Copyright 2022 The Gitea Authors. All rights reserved. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this file is actually needed - in the original PR there was just a small change to its logic, but it looks like the file has been entirely deleted in the main branch of the repo. I think it can be deleted entirely, but I'll keep it around until either a) I can get more confidence in that position, or b) someone more knowledgeable about the codebase can confirm that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has been moved in a recent PR. Maybe you could try to find when it is deleted. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6839398/find-when-a-file-was-deleted-in-git
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, thanks! Looks like it was moved to services/actions/task.go.
|
Hmm - I'm getting error: but when I run that command, I get I'm guessing that some names changed between the time this code was originally written and now. I'll keep poking around! |
|
It is |
This will not build until [this PR](https://gitea.com/gitea/act/pulls/73) (which adds `SingleWorkflow.RawPermissions`) is merged.
|
Note that building will still fail until this PR is merged, since it adds a EDIT: re-opened here. |
As requested [here](go-gitea#33945 (comment)).
|
I re-opened the PRs on act and act_runner which are dependencies of this one. Hopefully 🤞🏻 those should be smooth to merge (since it looks like the originals were already approved), at which point I can iron out the rest of the build/lint failures. Thanks for the assistance/attention so far! 🙏🏻 |
|
Hmm, I'm a little stumped by this last build failure - the original uses EDIT: Ah, found it - in this commit, looks like we now need to use |
|
I suspect that these failing I'll keep poking around to see if I can reproduce/understand/fix this failure; but this is probably the point where this PR would benefit from someone who knows the codebase better stepping in. |
Resurrecting [this PR](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/272) (a dependency of [this one](go-gitea/gitea#33945)) after the original author [lost motivation](go-gitea/gitea#25664 (comment)) - though, to be clear, all credit belongs to them, and all blame for mistakes or misunderstandings to me. Co-authored-by: Søren L. Hansen <sorenisanerd@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/674 Reviewed-by: ChristopherHX <christopherhx@noreply.gitea.com> Reviewed-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jack Jackson <scubbojj@gmail.com> Co-committed-by: Jack Jackson <scubbojj@gmail.com>
| Status: status, | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
| runJobs = append(runJobs, runJob) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is appended twice? once here and once on 374?
|
Hey, what happened with that branch? Can you provide us an update? That would be very much appreciated |
8 participants
This adds support for a Github Actions compatible OIDC provider.
For more info, see:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/deployment/security-hardening-your-deployments/about-security-hardening-with-openid-connect
It depends on a few changes in act and act_runner:
https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/272
https://gitea.com/gitea/act/pulls/73
The above is the summary of the original PR that this sprang from. It looks like that one (which has been open for nearly 2 years) has lost steam after the original contributor got frustrated with delays, so I'm hoping that opening a fresh PR will revitalize the effort.
To be extremely clear: