Closed paul-hansen closed 1 year ago
Should we be specifying the required permissions in the workflow instead?
This seems sort of new / I don't remember having to do this previously.
edit: pretty sure this won't help
Is it possible that this was only required because it was being tested in a fork? I suppose either way, adding this message is harmless.
Is it possible that this was only required because it was being tested in a fork?
I think it's likely that it is because it's a fork but I created it using the big green "Use this template" button on GitHub so it's pretty likely that others would run into it too.
This seems sort of new / I don't remember having to do this previously.
It could also be a recent thing, though this is my first time using it as a template. When I used this for the bevy jam 2, I added it to an existing project and I didn't run into it then.
Should we be specifying the required permissions in the workflow instead?
If that's possible that would be ideal! Didn't know that might be a thing when I wrote this PR.
It could also be a recent thing, though this is my first time using it as a template.
Good point. Actually, I haven't tested this as a template before, but I can confirm that I see the same thing when using the "Use this template" button.
It seems like this might be an old issue with actions-rs/clippy-check
though.
https://github.com/actions-rs/clippy-check/issues/2
Which apparently needs some sort of write perms to annotate commits.
Pinging @mockersf for github CI expertise. Is it an issue to instruct users to add these permissions?
They don't seem to be the default even for non-forked repos.
This also seems to be a problem with the release workflow, so moving away from actions-rs/clippy-check
doesn't seem like a solution.
Fixes #26