Closed thaJeztah closed 1 year ago
Looks like the containerd "project" action depends on GOPATH in some way; need to check why (and if we can fix that)
Looks like the containerd "project" action depends on GOPATH in some way; need to check why (and if we can fix that)
Actually it is not the DCO check that failed but the file header check. And looking at the action it looks like it requires the working-directory
input to be set. Now I wonder how come it did not fail with an error message complaining about that. Looks like it went berserk instead and scanned all files it could then complained about the lack of the containerd licence header.
Yes, I spotted that working-dir "required" property in the project-check repository; so I think that could be related indeed.
Guess I need to look more into that; in the meantime, I reverted the GOPATH
, path
, and working-dir
changes for the project-checks (but kept it for all the other changes). I think that should probably unblock this PR
Codecov Report
Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
+0.05%
:tada:Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #53 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 64.55% 64.61% +0.05% ========================================== Files 9 9 Lines 1834 1834 ========================================== + Hits 1184 1185 +1 + Misses 499 498 -1 Partials 151 151 ``` [see 1 file with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/containerd/nri/pull/53/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=containerd):umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.