bug: [actions/upload-artifact] wrong artifact-id and artifact-url #187
Labels
No labels
FreeBSD
Kind/Breaking
Kind/Bug
Kind/Chore
Kind/DependencyUpdate
Kind/Documentation
Kind/Enhancement
Kind/Feature
Kind/Security
Kind/Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Windows
linux-powerpc64le
linux-riscv64
linux-s390x
run-end-to-end-tests
run-forgejo-tests
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
forgejo/runner#187
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
The action
upload-artifactprovides two outputs:The URL will construct the following way:
So,
runIdanduploadResponse.idis used. runID comes from the runner itself(?)runner.go:
This results in the following artifact-url (output), which is broken (HTTP 404):
The correct artifact-url (taken from the Web-UI) should be the following:
This is my runner workflow:
It looks like github is using a different URI then forgejo.
RunIDshould be theRunNumberand theartifact-idshould be the name of the artifact rather than an ID.Any update on this?
@earl-warren: Do I miss something here?
No update, you did not miss anything. This needs work.
[actions/upload-artifact] Wrong artifact-id and artifact-urlto bug: [actions/upload-artifact] wrong artifact-id and artifact-urlI'll work on fixing that now.
I looked up Gitea but this is not implemented either, it 404 exactly in the same way.
I tried my best to find code to cherry-pick and not re-invent an existing solution. Since there is nothing, I'll happily get creative on this one 😁
@f00 your investigation was useful and the conclusions correct. The fixes are:
Thats awesome! Thank you!
It turned out to require a breaking change (a minor one but still). https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9023 will be where it happens. @f00 if you could take a look at it (specially the release note part) it would be much appreciated.