[GH-ISSUE #706] Enhancement: Use act as a self-hosted runner for github actions

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:28 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @ChristopherHX on GitHub (May 25, 2021).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/706

Originally assigned to: @cplee, @catthehacker, @ChristopherHX on GitHub.

Some people want to have more platform support for self-hosted runners than dotnet provides. What about reusing the runner of act to create a self-hosted runner written in go?

I have written a proof of concept prototype which (partially) implements github's / microsoft's proprietary azure pipelines protocol and executes the job via act.

Does this fit into the goals of act?
I guess this breaks

"Think globally, act locally"

from the ReadMe.

I thinks this improves compatibility for workflows tested against act, because less lines of the workflow are interpreted by github.

My problems using act as library are:

No way to disable localcheckout
No way to provide the repository owner and name without a checkout
No way to use an existing github context (needs depends on an exitsting PR)
Cannot fully instantiate a runcontext from scratch (outside of the act module), I only want to run one job at a time

What works

translating steps from githubs job request into acts step model
live logs on github.com
logs foreach step are uploaded to github.com

Sample Test Run of my prototype:

~~My prototype currently doesn't have a cli parser and needs small code changes to be registered against github or my own actions server~~, Implemented now

Originally created by @ChristopherHX on GitHub (May 25, 2021). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/706 Originally assigned to: @cplee, @catthehacker, @ChristopherHX on GitHub. [Some people](https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/243) want to have more platform support for self-hosted runners than dotnet provides. What about reusing the runner of act to create a self-hosted runner written in go? I have written a proof of concept [prototype](https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-actions-act-runner) which (partially) implements github's / microsoft's proprietary azure pipelines protocol and executes the job via act. Does this fit into the goals of act? I guess this breaks > "Think globally, act locally" from the ReadMe. I thinks this improves compatibility for workflows tested against act, because less lines of the workflow are interpreted by github. My problems using act as library are: - No way to disable localcheckout - No way to provide the repository owner and name without a checkout - No way to use an existing github context (needs depends on an exitsting PR) - Cannot fully instantiate a runcontext from scratch (outside of the act module), I only want to run one job at a time What works - translating steps from githubs job request into acts step model - live logs on github.com - logs foreach step are uploaded to github.com Sample Test Run of my prototype: ![Webaufnahme_25-5-2021_22519_github com](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/44845461/119569364-f22e1e80-bdae-11eb-8851-4c8cbdf8e3f3.jpeg) ~~_My prototype currently doesn't have a cli parser and needs small code changes to be registered against github or my own [actions server](https://github.com/ChristopherHX/runner.server)_~~, Implemented now

kerem

2026-03-01 21:43:28 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
kind/feature-request

stale-exempt

kind/discussion
labels

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@igagis commented on GitHub (Jul 15, 2021):

I'm trying @ChristopherHX 's runner at the moment, it looks very promising for my needs.

@igagis commented on GitHub (Jul 15, 2021): I'm trying @ChristopherHX 's runner at the moment, it looks very promising for my needs.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

I don't see it happening in a near future. I assigned us to this but it's not something that is planned to be implemented in act.
It would be nice to see if there is any demand for it but act is mostly useful to eliminate the need to trigger GitHub Actions.

I've also explained here why it's not recommended for now to do such things.
The ultimate priority for now is to match full compliance with GitHub Actions workflow behaviour, since we still have a lot of issues with that (e.g.: env: not properly parsed).

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): I don't see it happening in a near future. I assigned us to this but it's not something that is *planned* to be implemented in `act`. It would be nice to see if there is any demand for it but `act` is mostly useful to *eliminate* the need to trigger GitHub Actions. I've also explained [here](https://github.com/cli/cli/issues/3585#issuecomment-847849359) why it's not recommended *for now* to do such things. The ultimate priority for now is to match full compliance with GitHub Actions workflow behaviour, since we still have a lot of issues with that (e.g.: `env:` not properly parsed).

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@igagis commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

It would be nice to see if there is any demand for it but act is mostly useful to eliminate the need to trigger GitHub Actions.

I'm currently using @ChristopherHX 's runner based on act due to some bug in official github runner, and it doesn't seem like they will fix it anytime soon, see https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/1168.

@igagis commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): > It would be nice to see if there is any demand for it but act is mostly useful to eliminate the need to trigger GitHub Actions. I'm currently using @ChristopherHX 's runner based on `act` due to some bug in official github runner, and it doesn't seem like they will fix it anytime soon, see https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/1168.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

By demand, I meant volume of it, and quite a big one if we want to consider implementing such big change at all.

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): By demand, I meant volume of it, and quite a big one if we want to consider implementing such big change at all.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

Well I have implemented it already, so it will keep a different Project for now.
There is no need to change the existing code of act, other than make it to match github actions more closely. For example the timeout-minutes is an interger, but it is an expression on github actions.
The protocol could live in an external github repo, then only some step translations needs to be intergrated into act.

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): Well I have implemented it already, so it will keep a different Project for now. There is no need to change the existing code of act, other than make it to match github actions more closely. For example the timeout-minutes is an interger, but it is an expression on github actions. The protocol could live in an external github repo, then only some step translations needs to be intergrated into act.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

There is no need to change the existing code of act, other than make it to match github actions more closely

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): > There is no need to change the existing code of act, other than make it to match github actions more closely ![](https://media1.tenor.com/images/6717d386db9c524f6bb733cd9cca65e3/tenor.gif?itemid=11599348) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/31106839/127042499-136a6e0d-e95f-4a1d-a884-314edcb00adc.png)

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:29 +03:00

Author

Owner

@StevenACoffman commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022):

@ChristopherHX I was wondering how much more remains to be upstreamed from your fork to make nektos/act match github actions more closely? I use both your fork and nektos/act and would love to have the diff be as small as possible

The protocol could live in an external github repo, then only some step translations needs to be integrated into act.

@catthehacker would you be supportive of this incorporating the step translations into nektos/act (with a flag or something to disable it by default)?

@StevenACoffman commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022): @ChristopherHX I was wondering how much more remains to be upstreamed from your fork to make `nektos/act` match github actions more closely? I use both your fork and `nektos/act` and would love to have the diff be as small as possible > The protocol could live in an external github repo, then only some step translations needs to be integrated into act. @catthehacker would you be supportive of this incorporating the step translations into `nektos/act` (with a flag or something to disable it by default)?

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022):

(with a flag or something to disable it by default)?

if it will be useful for act, then I don't see why it would be under a flag.

@catthehacker commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022): > (with a flag or something to disable it by default)? if it will be useful for `act`, then I don't see why it would be under a flag.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022):

I was wondering how much more remains to be upstreamed from your fork

More or less this is still pending

local step runner, nektos/act has only a docker implementation. I added a hostexecutor which implements the current container interface.
Depends on runtime actpath, since without container runtime we get path collision if running > 1 jobs parallel
force remote checkout flag in config, since a selfhosted runners doesn't have any local checkout it could copy
make docker optional, needed for freebsd, netbsd, plan9 etc.
pass shell command directly to the container implementation, nektos/act cannot call cmd on windows without any error
GHES / gitea add the protocol to the cli switch
cannot bind to http://github.localhost ( only https://github.localhost works ) The offical runner supports this
gitea allow custom GITHUB_API_SERVER, e.g. http://gitea.localhost/api/v1. The offical runner supports this
Allow cancellation of running steps
Allow to control tty allocation without tty check
Move container --rm to the jobexecutor, to make shure we don't skip cleanup
Custom source for the github context, since we receive one from the github actions service / runner.server

match github actions more closely

This is more or less optional, I meant only quality / usablilty improvements.

Technically if only the docker executor is required, We could skip over to

it might be possible build github-act-runner directly with nektos/act
copy my code into new package(s) for nektos/act
Integrate the configure, remove and run commands for selfhosted runner support
I'm not shure if this would confuse some people, after nektos/act has these subcommands.

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2022): > I was wondering how much more remains to be upstreamed from your fork More or less this is still pending - local step runner, `nektos/act` has only a docker implementation. I added a hostexecutor which implements the current container interface. Depends on runtime actpath, since without container runtime we get path collision if running > 1 jobs parallel - force remote checkout flag in config, since a selfhosted runners doesn't have any local checkout it could copy - make docker optional, needed for freebsd, netbsd, plan9 etc. - pass shell command directly to the container implementation, `nektos/act` cannot call `cmd` on windows without any error - GHES / gitea add the protocol to the cli switch cannot bind to http://github.localhost ( only http**s**://github.localhost works ) **The offical runner supports this** - gitea allow custom GITHUB_API_SERVER, e.g. `http://gitea.localhost/api/v1`. **The offical runner supports this** - Allow cancellation of running steps - Allow to control tty allocation without tty check - Move container `--rm` to the jobexecutor, to make shure we don't skip cleanup - Custom source for the github context, since we receive one from the github actions service / runner.server > match github actions more closely This is more or less optional, I meant only quality / usablilty improvements. Technically if only the docker executor is required, We could skip over to - it might be possible build github-act-runner directly with `nektos/act` - copy my code into new package(s) for `nektos/act` - Integrate the `configure`, `remove` and `run` commands for selfhosted runner support I'm not shure if this would confuse some people, after `nektos/act` has these subcommands.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2025):

Abandoning

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2025): Abandoning

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Flash303 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

Abandoning

So sad, it's a great feature

@Flash303 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > Abandoning So sad, it's a great feature

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

Abandoning

So sad, it's a great feature

I might left you in the dark, by my statement

Project github-act-runner continues independent of nektos/act, just merging no longer planned.

@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > > Abandoning > > So sad, it's a great feature I might left you in the dark, by my statement Project github-act-runner continues independent of nektos/act, just merging no longer planned. Read more here <https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-act-runner>.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 21:43:30 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Flash303 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

Abandoning

So sad, it's a great feature

I might left you in the dark, by my statement

Project github-act-runner continues independent of nektos/act, just merging no longer planned.

Read more here https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-act-runner.

Thanks

@Flash303 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > > > Abandoning > > > > So sad, it's a great feature > > I might left you in the dark, by my statement > > Project github-act-runner continues independent of nektos/act, just merging no longer planned. > > Read more here <https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-act-runner>. Thanks

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-01 21:51:14 +03:00

[PR #461] [MERGED] Fix slashes when running on Windows #1453

Rows
Columns

[GH-ISSUE #706] Enhancement: Use act as a self-hosted runner for github actions #447