-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 139
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
github action check status is "neutral" when tests pass #220
Comments
Personally, I like to refer to the status of the job that runs the unit tests to see if tests have passed or not. EDIT: I've marked this as |
@davidmfinol ah, so a way to get a green checkmark on test success is to split out the test step into its own job? Will the job actually report a fail or success in this case, since the step will still be reporting neutral? Guess I'll try it and see. Also, I don't agree with the sentiment that the results showing neutral for "findability" is a good thing. Marking a step "neutral" when it is 100% clear as to its pass or fail status (tests passed, or one or more tests failed, respectively) just so it can be found more easily in a list seems to be a complete misuse of the property. |
You could use a different test reporter to show the green checkmark, like dorny/test-reporter. See comments in #142 for details. |
Ahh I was looking for one, thank u @timcassell ! |
Yep, I look at the status of the test job to see if that job actually passed or failed. I wouldn't call the test report a "step". It's just additional information that supplements the actual step that is the test job. And like @timcassell suggests you could also use a different test reporter, or you could fork this repo and have your fork modify
neutral to success .
|
Ok, thanks. I'm looking for the step to report pass/fail b/c I simply want
to fail the build and disallow a merge if test fail. Seems like a fairly
common use case to me 🤔 ... but I'll look at the reporter or forking.
Thanks for the work on everything else that makes this work!
…On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:10 PM David Finol ***@***.***> wrote:
Will the job actually report a fail or success in this case, since the
step will still be reporting neutral?
Yep, I look at the status of the test job to see if that job actually
passed or failed. I wouldn't call the test report a "step". It's just
additional information that supplements the actual step that is the test
job.
And like @timcassell <https://github.com/timcassell> suggests you could
also use a different test reporter, or you could fork this repo and have
your fork modify
https://github.com/game-ci/unity-test-runner/blob/31086d985910613d75c32ba965f657df9c298820/src/model/results-check.ts#L91
to change the conclusion from neutral to success.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#220 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AW7WD76PCDQLDASNJ4F5DA3XGJIO3ANCNFSM6AAAAAAX7YIWVY>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Bug description
When all tests pass, github still has the action marked as "neutral" instead of a pass / green check mark
How to reproduce
Run the test runner with a suite of passing tests, observe a neutral result (see screenshot):
Passing tests should show a green check mark for the github action
My action code:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: