Is there a way to prevent merging of required, skipped checks? #42945
Replies: 3 comments
-
Did you find an answer or a work around? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@yovimaster Sorry, it's been a while, and I don't have access to the repo where I was working on this issue. I do believe I found a workaround, but I'm not 100% sure what it was. I think I did something like intentionally failing the job or finding a way to have a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
🕒 Discussion Activity Reminder 🕒 This Discussion has been labeled as dormant by an automated system for having no activity in the last 60 days. Please consider one the following actions: 1️⃣ Close as Out of Date: If the topic is no longer relevant, close the Discussion as 2️⃣ Provide More Information: Share additional details or context — or let the community know if you've found a solution on your own. 3️⃣ Mark a Reply as Answer: If your question has been answered by a reply, mark the most helpful reply as the solution. Note: This dormant notification will only apply to Discussions with the Thank you for helping bring this Discussion to a resolution! 💬 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Select Topic Area
Question
Body
I am skipping a workflow check based on a conditional (label existence on PR). It is not path filtering, branch filtering, or a commit message so the status checks, according to this doc, will be reported as
success
. I do not want this to happen since I would like to require it is fully run (after the conditional is fulfilled) before a merge based on branch protection rules. Is there any way to accomplish this?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions