You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Add a GitHub Actions workflow that regularly runs check_versions.py, and use the "job summary" feature to make that visible in a more prominent location. This would allow linking to the workflow's page from the README, where the user can click into one of the jobs and see the version table as a "job summary".
The link from the README would be similar to this one for pypi-package.yml, and the job summary would be a markdown block presented like Build & verify package summary (this example uses <details> for dropdowns, and also attaches artifacts which are shown above the summary -- we likely wouldn't do either of those things).
What is the benefit of this?
This would eliminate the need for follow up bump PRs like #156 in the future, since the information would be automatically tracked and kept up to date via the regular re-runs of the script (with historical information as well, which is a nice side-effect?).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What would change?
Add a GitHub Actions workflow that regularly runs
check_versions.py
, and use the "job summary" feature to make that visible in a more prominent location. This would allow linking to the workflow's page from the README, where the user can click into one of the jobs and see the version table as a "job summary".https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#adding-a-job-summary
The link from the README would be similar to this one for pypi-package.yml, and the job summary would be a markdown block presented like Build & verify package summary (this example uses
<details>
for dropdowns, and also attaches artifacts which are shown above the summary -- we likely wouldn't do either of those things).What is the benefit of this?
This would eliminate the need for follow up bump PRs like #156 in the future, since the information would be automatically tracked and kept up to date via the regular re-runs of the script (with historical information as well, which is a nice side-effect?).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: