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

📖 Add correct contact to CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md #2508

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 13, 2023

Conversation

calebbrown
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: Caleb Brown [email protected]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Docs Update

What is the current behavior?

[INSERT CONTACT METHOD] is in the code of conduct.

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**

Replace [INSERT CONTACT METHOD] with actual contact [email protected] (as verified in Slack).

  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

NONE

Special notes for your reviewer

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

For user-facing changes, please add a concise, human-readable release note to
the release-note

(In particular, describe what changes users might need to make in their
application as a result of this pull request.)

NONE

@calebbrown calebbrown requested a review from olivekl as a code owner December 2, 2022 03:46
@calebbrown calebbrown temporarily deployed to integration-test December 2, 2022 03:46 Inactive
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 2, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #2508 (576a0a2) into main (47be523) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2508   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   40.40%   40.40%           
=======================================
  Files         122      122           
  Lines        9908     9908           
=======================================
  Hits         4003     4003           
  Misses       5624     5624           
  Partials      281      281           

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2022

Integration tests success for
[f36bf9a]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3598695198)

@github-actions
Copy link

Stale pull request message

@azeemshaikh38 azeemshaikh38 enabled auto-merge (squash) December 13, 2022 02:09
@azeemshaikh38 azeemshaikh38 temporarily deployed to integration-test December 13, 2022 02:09 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

Integration tests success for
[98682e2]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3681577983)

Copy link
Contributor

@olivekl olivekl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for this, LGTM & approval.

@naveensrinivasan naveensrinivasan temporarily deployed to integration-test December 14, 2022 18:23 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

Integration tests success for
[bd7f06f]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3697570359)

@calebbrown calebbrown temporarily deployed to integration-test December 21, 2022 03:29 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

Integration tests success for
[3e872d1]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3746160476)

@spencerschrock
Copy link
Member

There doesn't seem to be any native way of fixing the skipped checks, for reasons that this blog sums up well.
https://blog.pantsbuild.org/skipping-github-actions-jobs-without-breaking-branch-protection/

@laurentsimon
Copy link
Contributor

There doesn't seem to be any native way of fixing the skipped checks, for reasons that this blog sums up well. https://blog.pantsbuild.org/skipping-github-actions-jobs-without-breaking-branch-protection/

I've not read the link, but I think you can declare an additional job that depends on the skipped, and mark the new job if: always() and use that job in branch protection. We do something similar on the SLSA repos.

@spencerschrock
Copy link
Member

There doesn't seem to be any native way of fixing the skipped checks, for reasons that this blog sums up well. https://blog.pantsbuild.org/skipping-github-actions-jobs-without-breaking-branch-protection/

I've not read the link, but I think you can declare an additional job that depends on the skipped, and mark the new job if: always() and use that job in branch protection. We do something similar on the SLSA repos.

I think this is a little different. The jobs are never scheduled due to the path filtering at the top. I don't think always() would run as the job isn't skipped, it's never scheduled. But I can try an experiment.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 2, 2023

Stale pull request message

@calebbrown calebbrown temporarily deployed to integration-test January 9, 2023 23:59 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

Integration tests success for
[81345a3]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3878816529)

@calebbrown calebbrown temporarily deployed to integration-test January 13, 2023 00:23 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

Integration tests success for
[576a0a2]
(https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/actions/runs/3907189479)

@azeemshaikh38 azeemshaikh38 merged commit 811bf75 into ossf:main Jan 13, 2023
raghavkaul pushed a commit to raghavkaul/scorecard that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2023
Signed-off-by: Caleb Brown <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Caleb Brown <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Azeem Shaikh <[email protected]>
raghavkaul pushed a commit to raghavkaul/scorecard that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2023
Signed-off-by: Caleb Brown <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Caleb Brown <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Azeem Shaikh <[email protected]>
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.

6 participants