Skip to content

Only run check-binary-size workflow for PRs against master #709

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Only run check-binary-size workflow for PRs against master #709

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3ff53d9
Only run check-binary-size workflow for PRs against master
Marcono1234 May 3, 2025
d15f5bb
Require explicitly setting permissions for check-binary-size workflow…
Marcono1234 May 3, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions .github/workflows/check-binary-size.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,9 +6,12 @@ name: Check binary size

on:
pull_request_target:
# HACK(jubilee): something broke the distributed LLVM libso and I don't know what.
branches: []
# - master
branches:
- master
Comment on lines -9 to +10
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the motivation for the change to this filter? This sure looks like adding a value to an empty array, which seems to increase the number of possibilities. I'm not entirely sure if I understand what this did anymore and the GitHub Actions docs don't provide enough info for me to understand how Actions interprets an empty array here either, so I am not convinced this change is good.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, the answer is that the filter that matches nothing instead matches everything. Great.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Marcono1234 You can tell GitHub that if the empty array doesn't mean "empty" then they have a bug.

I don't have any direct connection to GitHub. I can only tell them that the same way you can, through https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions I assume. There is actually an existing discussion about it: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/158135 (not sure if other duplicate ones exist as well)


# Remove all permissions for the workflow to increase security; the individual jobs
# below specify the exact permissions they need
permissions: {}
Comment on lines +12 to +14
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the jobs specify permissions then do they not strip permissions from the jobs? Because specifying any one permission removes all others.

In either case it seems somewhat irrelevant. It's a false safety if a permission later in the job can be readded, no? Please be more precise in what we are achieving here. What is the permission we are preventing from being misused?

Copy link
Author

@Marcono1234 Marcono1234 May 7, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have extended the PR description to explain this. This requires that every job explicitly needs to list permissions it needs, and prevents that in the future by accident a job without permissions is added which then gets too extensive default permissions.


# Both the "measure" and "report" jobs need to know this.
env:
Expand Down
Loading