-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
feat: parse checkboxes #21
feat: parse checkboxes #21
Conversation
Hi @elhmn, thanks for submitting this change. I do agree that the current output isn't perfect. From a quick glance it all make sense. I need some more time to review this in details since it's a breaking change. Therefore, please bear with me. Thanks in advance. |
8128e6b
to
c87aec2
Compare
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.
Sorry that it took me so long to come back to this. I updated the README and made a tiny change. Apart from that I left a comment regarding a change which affects the action output. However, overall this change looks good. As said I'll look into the test for the output, maybe separately.
index.js
Outdated
}); | ||
|
||
result = toObject(result); | ||
core.setOutput(`issueparser`, result); |
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.
I wonder if this change was intended. Right now every form value becomes its own output e.g issueparser_ email = [email protected]
. However, this change will result in a single output named issueparser
which will include the entire parsed response as a json string, which is the same as the current existing jsonString
output.
Original I added this output per form value, to avoid the write/read file dance in case only value is needed. I think that way it is easier to work with that a json-string that needs to be parse ... What do you think @elhmn?
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.
Also interesting that none of the unit tests was catching that issue. The mock is looking for issueparser_
... I'll look into this
ee7fae7
to
72eec4b
Compare
* feat: parse checkboxes * fixup! feat: parse checkboxes * docs: Update readme to match v3 behaviour * fix: ensure every value sets an output parameter * chore: update readme Co-authored-by: Stefan Buck <[email protected]>
* feat: parse checkboxes * fixup! feat: parse checkboxes * docs: Update readme to match v3 behaviour * fix: ensure every value sets an output parameter * chore: update readme Co-authored-by: Stefan Buck <[email protected]>
* feat: parse checkboxes * fixup! feat: parse checkboxes * docs: Update readme to match v3 behaviour * fix: ensure every value sets an output parameter * chore: update readme Co-authored-by: Stefan Buck <[email protected]>
This has been finally landed in v3. Thanks for your patience with this release |
@stefanbuck , we noticed that although we use v2, the action parses checkboxes the new way, which caused our code to fail until we adjusted it to handle the new output format. Question is, how would this v3 impact v2 at all? we do specific v2 (and it has working fine for us until 7 days ago (10/26/22). parse issue body
|
This pull request allow checkboxes values to be parsed and stored in an array as described in #20