Action not available in status checks

[BryceAshey]

Hey Folks - I have an action that ran successfully and I’m trying to set it up to validate a PR. When I go to the branch protection and go to setup the status check the action I created does not show there. I did not add specific yml to set a status - is that required?

I read the numerous stackoverflows, About Status Checks, and About Protected Branchs and numerous other articles but none of them talk about the yml to stamp a status… Any guidance is welcome.

[BryceAshey]

To sortof close this out - the action is firing on pull requests so it’s working and verifying that status passes. I guess specifically setting it in the branch protection is not required once it’s setup in the actions…

[jsoref]

The required status checks thing as of late doesn’t automatically show status checks, instead there’s a text area where you can enter a search criteria to get a choice of matching status checks to add.

This isn’t the first question I’ve seen asked about this, and it feels like the docs could use a picture or two.

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/defining-the-mergeability-of-pull-requests/about-protected-branches#require-status-checks-before-merging

Here’s a sample of me searching for a status check to require:

image1240×380 52.8 KB

And once I’ve added it, I can control whether I care about the source of the status check:

image1384×638 90.6 KB

Here, I’m saying that I want a passing ✅ from GitHub Actions for Check Spelling.

[kion-dgl]

I'm running into an issue where nothing is showing up in the "Status Checks" list rule even when searching.

The workflow file is .github/workflows/ci.yml, the name is Astro CI, it is triggered on pull_request, and I have confirmed that it runs on a pull request. But I cannot add a rule, which would require it to pass before merging a PR.

[jsoref]

I'd file a ticket with https://support.github.com

[konrad-sol]

@jsoref could you share the ticket number?

[jsoref]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I wrote I'd to mean If I were you, I would.

[konrad-sol]

My mistake, thanks.
I checked today and it works. Maybe it was connected with incident

[bantucaravan]

I am having the exact same issue. To solve it, I had to search by the name of the specific job. I originally was searching for the name of the whole workflow, and that did not work.

[achobanov]

I wasn't finding my action because I was searching by the workflow file name. You have to search for the job name as defined in the yaml. Makes sense, but could be more intuitive.

[Bash360]

You just saved me hours of confusion, thank you. I agree with you it is not intuitive.

[paigemoody]

Same! Thank you @achobanov !

[samuelreichor]

In my case, it only recognized my actions when the action runs on pull_request.

This works:

on:
  pull_request:

This does NOT work:

on:
  push:

[jawnothin]

Why doesn't this match against the actual action itself, rather than the individual jobs within it?? The internals of the action I would expect can change over time, where as the name of the action would likely not. I see this as something that could easily break. I could have the same job name on different actions that actually mean completely different things as well...

As others have suggested it's not intuitive at all, as it's pretty ambiguous to what you should put in here without any help text to go with it.

[onkoe]

Just wanted to add that this is fucking horrible.

For future Googlers: "No required checks" -- "No checks have been added".

Fix

Search for the name of the workflow file. That is, <FILE> in .github/workflows/<FILE>.yml.

edit: see shit below

[jsoref]

You wrote:

Search for the name of the workflow file. That is, <FILE> in .github/workflows.<FILE>.yml.

You meant:

Search for the name of the workflow file. That is, <FILE> in .github/workflows/<FILE>.yml.

Note that this isn't quite right. If a workflow has a top level name: then you should search for the value of that name: field, otherwise you'd search for the <FILE> part.

[onkoe]

Thanks for the correction! diff for anyone confused:

[jsoref]

You can/should edit your original message.

[vasilich6107]

Holy moly
How counterintuitive is the ui

@onkoe thanks for clear explanation