Revert to passing the coverage report as an artefact #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There is actually a point to passing the code coverage report around as an artefact. The whole point of not giving PRs from forks access to secrets is to prevent untrusted code from accessing and possibly exposing them. That protection is moot if the coverage report action, which does have access to the secrets, then runs the same untrusted code later to generate the report. While we may need to check out the same revision on which the report was generated, that doesn't mean we should run the code in it!
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit f2cd282 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (95% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 95.6% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There is actually a point to passing the code coverage report around as an artefact. The whole point of not giving PRs from forks access to secrets is to prevent untrusted code from accessing and possibly exposing them. That protection is moot if the coverage report action, which does have access to the secrets, then runs the same untrusted code later to generate the report.
While we may need to check out the same revision on which the report was generated, that doesn't mean we should run the code in it!