Skip to content

Only run the validate_hacs CI action on the upstream repo.#1423

Open
ademuri wants to merge 2 commits into
basnijholt:mainfrom
ademuri:no-forks
Open

Only run the validate_hacs CI action on the upstream repo.#1423
ademuri wants to merge 2 commits into
basnijholt:mainfrom
ademuri:no-forks

Conversation

@ademuri
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ademuri ademuri commented Feb 14, 2026

This avoids running this action on forks, since they likely won't have issues or topics enabled, and shouldn't need them.

This avoids running this action on forks, since they likely won't have
issues or topics enabled, and shouldn't need them.
@ademuri ademuri marked this pull request as ready for review February 14, 2026 06:05
@ademuri ademuri requested a review from basnijholt as a code owner February 14, 2026 06:05
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@florianhorner florianhorner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Single-line CI guard that prevents fork validation failures. LGTM.

florianhorner pushed a commit to florianhorner/adaptive-lighting that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2026
@basnijholt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Sorry it took me so long to get to this. I've been a bit overwhelmed by the number of AI-assisted PRs opened here recently, and I've also been spending nearly every spare hour on my biggest project so far, MindRoom.

I'm very supportive of using AI for coding, but many of these PRs still need careful human review because even plausible-looking changes can introduce subtle breakage. That backlog made me postpone reviewing them for a while.

I've now done a batch review with Codex / GPT-5.5 (xhigh). This comment is AI-assisted, but I've reviewed it before posting.

This looks reasonable to me. The job-level github.repository == 'basnijholt/adaptive-lighting' condition should skip fork-local validate_hacs runs while still allowing PR checks that run in the upstream repository context.

I do not see a blocker here. I would merge after a rebase/check refresh if branch protection requires it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants