Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upload of artifacts fails when working-directory is set for check-r-package #614

Closed
AskPascal opened this issue Sep 1, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #615
Closed

Upload of artifacts fails when working-directory is set for check-r-package #614

AskPascal opened this issue Sep 1, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #615
Labels
bug an unexpected problem or unintended behavior

Comments

@AskPascal
Copy link

Describe the bug
We are using the check-r-package action in a workflow to check a package in a sub-directory of the repository with the help of the working-directory input. A failed check will not generate artifacts but instead leads to the warning "No files were found with the provided path: check. No artifacts will be uploaded." The same behaviour is seen both when the input check-dir is set and when it is not specified.

To Reproduce
Run log:
https://github.com/Olink-Proteomics/OlinkRPackage/actions/runs/2972694134

Expected behavior
If the working-directory input is set it should be propagated to the artifact step.

Additional context
I suspect that adding working-directory here:

cat("##[set-output name=check-dir-path;]", (${{ inputs.check-dir }}), "\n", sep = "")
might be working

@AskPascal AskPascal added the bug an unexpected problem or unintended behavior label Sep 1, 2022
@gaborcsardi
Copy link
Member

Can you use OlinkAnalyze/check in check-dir here?
https://github.com/Olink-Proteomics/OlinkRPackage/actions/runs/2972694134/workflow#L59

@AskPascal
Copy link
Author

I tried that now. Did not solve the problem. It was running the checks in the OlinkAnalyze/OlinkAnalyze/check directory then:

https://github.com/Olink-Proteomics/OlinkRPackage/runs/8151753999?check_suite_focus=true#step:6:51

riccardoporreca added a commit to riccardoporreca/actions that referenced this issue Sep 5, 2022
riccardoporreca added a commit to riccardoporreca/actions that referenced this issue Sep 5, 2022
* Should fix r-lib#614, at least for the typical case where `check-dir` is a relative path.
* `check-dir` is now resolved relative to the working directory, as absolute path to also make it independent of the working directory of subsequent steps were the resolved `check-dir-path` output is used.
riccardoporreca added a commit to riccardoporreca/actions that referenced this issue Sep 5, 2022
@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor

@gaborcsardi , @AskPascal, I looked at this as a follow-up on similar aspects I contributed to earlier this month/year (#560, #595), see commits above replicating the issue (even in conjunction with a custom check-dir) and testing a possible fix, for which I will soon have a PR ready.

@gaborcsardi
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #615.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2022

This issue has been automatically locked. If you believe you have found a related problem, please file a new issue and include a link to this issue

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 4, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bug an unexpected problem or unintended behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants