🌐 AI搜索 & 代理 主页
Skip to content

Conversation

@0saurabh0
Copy link
Contributor

Reverting back as per #20373 (comment)

@github-actions github-actions bot added the no ticket Based on PR title, no linked Trac ticket label Dec 5, 2025
Copy link
Member

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here it suggests we might need actions: read permission to download artifacts generated on a fork's PR, do you agree?

edit: user misery thread

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls changed the title fix: use artifact-based PR number passing for reliable workflow_run triggers Refs #36620 -- Fixed PR number extraction in coverage_comment workflow. Dec 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the no ticket Based on PR title, no linked Trac ticket label Dec 5, 2025
Copy link
Member

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, feeling good about this one 🤞 .

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls merged commit fd4c5fa into django:main Dec 6, 2025
40 checks passed
@0saurabh0
Copy link
Contributor Author

Earlier I saw two coverage comments here - #20380 and now its one.
@jacobtylerwalls just wanted to ask, did you deleted the earlier comment manually or it happened automatically i.e. (which is how it should be)?

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
Member

I didn't touch it -- looks like it's working well!

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.

2 participants