You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
👋 fellow Hubber! Love this action and its versatility.
One idea that came to mind that would be helpful would be to specify an opposite/inverse of a command that would force the continue output to be 'false'. Specifically I was thinking about approval workflows that happen in issues instead of PRs. Currently, this would have to be implemented with two different github/command steps (one for .approve and one for .deny).
Alternatively, it'd be helpful to combine them into one step:
Edit: I just realized that I probably worded this poorly. I know that further steps that check the continue output would not run because commenting with .deny would not match the expected keyword. What would probably work better would be to have a separate output that is set when the opposite command is provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
👋 fellow Hubber! Love this action and its versatility.
One idea that came to mind that would be helpful would be to specify an opposite/inverse of a command that would force the
continue
output to be'false'
. Specifically I was thinking about approval workflows that happen in issues instead of PRs. Currently, this would have to be implemented with two differentgithub/command
steps (one for.approve
and one for.deny
).Alternatively, it'd be helpful to combine them into one step:
What do you think?
Edit: I just realized that I probably worded this poorly. I know that further steps that check the
continue
output would not run because commenting with.deny
would not match the expected keyword. What would probably work better would be to have a separate output that is set when the opposite command is provided.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: