Job Summaries are an alternative to comments
- Currently, check-spelling writes its reports using comments which have a 64k size limit. Some repositories hit this limit (although typically only during the initial onboarding).
- Creating a comment requires write permissions to either PRs to repositories (which is a security concern).
- People rightfully complain about check-spelling polluting PR discussions. The latest version of check-spelling will automatically collapse these reports which should partially alleviate this.
- Because of the size issues, and security concerns, a second stage is necessary, and an artifact is used to pass data between stages.
- Comments don't inherently know their own url, but when one creates one, the result includes the url, and one can rewrite the comment to embed the url.
- Artifact urls aren't known until after a workflow completes, which is a real problem, but the download-artifact feature is able to find them anyway...
Job Summaries (v0.0.21+)
- Job Summaries can be considerably larger (1mb?).
- Job Summaries don't require write permissions.
- Job Summaries are tied to the ✅ / ❌ / Details link for a Job and thus mostly disappear when they cease to be current.
- Job Summaries wouldn't need artifacts since all the data could be included in the summary itself.
- It's unclear how to determine the url of a Job Summary, and it's unlikely that one could rewrite a Job Summary later.
I haven't figured out how to integrate this feature into my workflow.
FAQ | Showcase | Event descriptions | Configuration information | Known Issues | Possible features | Deprecations | Release notes | Helpful scripts