We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Apparently codecov-action code is still... bit shaky, giving:
URL rejected: Port number was not a decimal number between 0 and 65535
See https://github.com/ansible/ansible-lint/actions/runs/12161810343/job/33917941601?pr=4412#step:8:79
The happened with usage below on a PR coming from a fork:
- name: Upload coverage data uses: codecov/[email protected] with: name: ${{ matrix.name }} # verbose: true # optional (default = false) fail_ci_if_error: true use_oidc: true # cspell:ignore oidc
Under no circumstance this should happen.
I do suspect that adding the magic below might address the failure, I still think that current behaviour is far from desirable UX.
use_oidc: ${{ !(github.event_name == 'pull_request' && github.event.pull_request.head.repo.fork) }}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Workaround for codecov-acton bug
66249a1
Related: codecov/codecov-action#1711
7c4907a
Related: codecov/codecov-action#1711 Also removes our own check because codecov API proves to not be so reliable.
Apparently there is some hope with #1687
Sorry, something went wrong.
528f159
Taking a look at this. @ssbarnea let me know if the new version worked for you, however.
thomasrockhu-codecov
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Apparently codecov-action code is still... bit shaky, giving:
See https://github.com/ansible/ansible-lint/actions/runs/12161810343/job/33917941601?pr=4412#step:8:79
The happened with usage below on a PR coming from a fork:
Under no circumstance this should happen.
I do suspect that adding the magic below might address the failure, I still think that current behaviour is far from desirable UX.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: