Open valentijnscholten opened 4 years ago
Agreed! Lintly supports a flag called —use-checks
, which uses GitHubs Checks API. It works when running Lintly from GitHub Actions. That should get the result you’re looking for.
Ah oke, I didn't know that was tied to the Checks API. I will try with a modified version of the lintly-flake8 action.
Do you think it would be a useful default to use the Checks API if Lintly runs from GitHub Actions? With the ability to override if someone prefers PR reviews.
For me that would be a better default yes
I've tried enabling --use-checks
as recommended above, but by default, it puts the annotations in a detached commit with the following message:
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Here is an example: https://github.com/neuropoly/spinalcordtoolbox/commit/353d15aaa0094a6d4fc135a86b49df0092b6e122. As a result, the annotations are not visible in the PR files page.
My GH Actions workflow config is the following:
name: Python Linting (lintly + flake8)
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
lint:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v2
- name: Set up Python
uses: actions/setup-python@v2
with:
python-version: 3.8
- name: Install dependencies
run: pip install flake8 lintly==0.5.0
- name: Lint with flake8
run: flake8 | lintly --use-checks --fail-on new --exit-zero --no-post-status
env:
LINTLY_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
I was able to fix this by manually specifying a different commit SHA. I learned which commit SHA to use by looking at the source code for flake8-your-pr
. Now, my workflow config looks like this:
run: flake8 | lintly --use-checks --fail-on new --exit-zero --no-post-status --commit-sha ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}
After this change, the annotation properly shows up in correct commit, and in the Files dialog: https://github.com/neuropoly/spinalcordtoolbox/pull/3213/files
I'm mentioning this here for anyone reading in the future, or in the hopes that this fix could be applied upstream.
(Thank you for developing this lovely tool!)
Great tooling, but personally I find it more useful to have the violations reported as annotations on the "Files Changed" tab. Having them as comments in the PR itself (or a review) clutters the PR.
Example: