mirror of
https://github.com/nektos/act.git
synced 2026-04-26 01:15:51 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #940] Issue: if ${{ env.ACT }} not working on master #555
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#555
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 @jayvdb on GitHub (Dec 23, 2021).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/940
System information
act:actversion:github.com/nektos/act@ed01f464ed(also a few few commits earliergithub.com/nektos/act@9868e13772)Expected behaviour
Assuming https://github.com/nektos/act#skipping-steps is still current for
masterSteps with
if: ${{ !env.ACT }}should be skipped.Steps with
if: ${{ env.ACT }}should not be skipped.Actual behaviour
Steps with
if: ${{ env.ACT }}are skipped.Steps with
if: ${{ !env.ACT }}are not skipped.Workflow and/or repository
Steps to reproduce
actfrom masterif: ${{ env.ACT }}orif: ${{ !env.ACT }}on v0.2.25actoutput@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2021):
I can confirm, this is broken in current master since
github.com/nektos/act@1891c72ab1.However https://github.com/nektos/act/pull/908 will fix this issue again, together with an improved expression evaluator.
I wonder why this feature doesn't have a testcase.
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2022):
Maybe @ZauberNerd can add a proper test for this?
Something like:
@ZauberNerd commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2022):
@BlackDex I don't see how that test relates to the expression evaluator. IMHO it should be a separate PR to be merged after #908 has been merged.
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2022):
@ZauberNerd Well, the expression evaluator changes from PR #840 broke this and according to @ChristopherHX PR #908 fixes that issue, so maybe wise to have a test in there which prevents any further breaking of this when working on this feature?
It sounds logical to me to have a test added to a PR which fixes a specific issue doesn't it?
@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2022):
@BlackDex I added your testworkflow in a new PullRequest, since the bug was fixed.