mirror of
https://github.com/nektos/act.git
synced 2026-04-26 01:15:51 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #2681] Multiline expressions in .actrc #1211
Labels
No labels
area/action
area/cli
area/docs
area/image
area/runner
area/workflow
backlog
confirmed/not-planned
kind/bug
kind/discussion
kind/external
kind/feature-request
kind/question
meta/duplicate
meta/invalid
meta/need-more-info
meta/resolved
meta/wontfix
meta/workaround
needs-work
pull-request
review/not-planned
size/M
size/XL
size/XXL
stale
stale-exempt
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/act#1211
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @wooseopkim on GitHub (Feb 23, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/2681
Act version
0.2.74Feature description
.actrcperforms basic expansion, but its syntax is quite simple. I really appreciate its simplicity for making the format reliable and readable. However, one more functionality would be of great help in my view. It's Bash style multiline expression. In bash,\is often used to escape newlines, splitting long expressions into multiple lines. I think act also could benefit from its power. This feature would be specifically useful in case of arguments like--container-optionwhich may have long values.As of now we have to:
It would be much more readable if we could:
Given that
--container-optionwas first introduced with an initial intention of deprecating multiple parameters, it seems reasonable to assume the argument could grow pretty lengthy. For this reason, I suggest multiline expressions for.actrcs.@panekj commented on GitHub (Feb 23, 2025):
I don't like this and I would like to never expand
.actrcparsing in any way. If you need to have more custom formatting, you should use a shell script for that.@wooseopkim commented on GitHub (Feb 24, 2025):
I see what you're trying to say, and I think you got a solid point. Still I think this humble suggestion is worth measuring its gains (flexibility and readability) against losses (e.g. maintaining burdens and possible error sources). Certainly more than "I dont' like this" or something.