-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 126
ci: Add contributor license agreement check #1850
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
Conversation
|
Looks good to me, and the |
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| steps: | ||
| - name: Check if CLA signed | ||
| uses: canonical/has-signed-canonical-cla@5d1443b94417bd150ad234a82fe21f7340a25e4d # v2.1.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
minor:
I wonder if we could trust the canonical org and reference this action by branch like @v2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd be on board with an entry for canonical to the .github/zizmor.yml policies being added in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wondered about that. You'd hope that we could. It feels pretty broad, but I guess it's sending the wrong message if we don't :)
|
|
||
| on: | ||
| pull_request: | ||
| workflow_dispatch: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems a bit odd... what would be checked?
Perhaps authors of the last NN commits?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking it would be useful if it failed, then the contributor signed the CLA, and we could run it manually. But maybe we can just re-run the failed check, so that would be sufficient.
|
It looks like maybe an org level one is meant to run. I've asked in MM for information. Maybe it's failing to run unless we duplicate it? That would be weird. I see that pattern in other repos, though. |
|
Apparently this is being run at an org level so no need to add it ourselves. I assume they will sort out the issue with it not running. |
It seems like the
canonicalorganisation is now forcing all repositories to have a passing CLA check, so check if adding that workflow here solves that issue.This is the workflow that the action recommends, with minor security improvements, and allowing workflow-dispatch.
Fixes #1851.