For example, travis-ci.com allows the user to define an env variable which is bound to a certain branch. Whereas Github does allow you to define secret env variables, they, however, all have to compete for the same namespace which introduces additional complexity. Does anyone know a workaround?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,238 times
1
-
This is the only thing which prevents me from fully migrating to Github Actions. – Mateja Petrovic Nov 29 '19 at 00:42
2 Answers
1
As an alternative, you can create an environment on GitHub. And you can create secrets for that environment. And finally, you can add a deployment branch for that environment. That means you could have a job to deploy to that environment using that secret. Only that job would have access to the secret and you can also set a rule to only allow deploys to that environment using workflows on that branch.
I think, that way you get what you want (or maybe a little bit more restrictive) because only that branch would have access to the secret but you have to define an environment. I suppose in most cases when you introduce a secret that depends on a branch it's because that branch represents an environment.
Jose Celano
- 539
- 1
- 7
- 14
0
I have not seen that particular feature, which means you need to define your variable environment with a naming convention:
branchName_myVariable
In your GitHub Action script, you can then reference said variable by prepending the branch name you would have extracted in a separate step.
VonC
- 1,262,500
- 529
- 4,410
- 5,250