When a GitHub Actions workflow file is syntactically invalid (e.g., an undefined input in a reusable workflow), GitHub does not "run" the workflow and therefore does not report a "failure" status to the commit. Instead, it simply appear in the checks tab on the PR.
The wait-for-status-checks action currently treats this "missing" check as a success (or ignores it), which allows broken deployments to slip through if the workflow file itself is corrupted.
Steps to Reproduce
- Create a workflow (e.g., release-dev.yml) that is triggered on push.
- Create a PR that Introduce a syntax error (e.g., use an undefined input for a called workflow).
- Observe that the "Release dev" check is missing from the commit's status list.
wait-for-status-checks proceeds as if all checks have passed.
Observed Behavior
The check simply disappears from the list rather than marking the commit as failed.
Expected Behavior
If a workflow file associated with is invalid, the action should ideally detect that a workflow failed to initialize or provide a way to fail if a "known" workflow name is missing from the status list.
When a GitHub Actions workflow file is syntactically invalid (e.g., an undefined input in a reusable workflow), GitHub does not "run" the workflow and therefore does not report a "failure" status to the commit. Instead, it simply appear in the checks tab on the PR.
The wait-for-status-checks action currently treats this "missing" check as a success (or ignores it), which allows broken deployments to slip through if the workflow file itself is corrupted.
Steps to Reproduce
wait-for-status-checksproceeds as if all checks have passed.Observed Behavior
The check simply disappears from the list rather than marking the commit as failed.
Expected Behavior
If a workflow file associated with is invalid, the action should ideally detect that a workflow failed to initialize or provide a way to fail if a "known" workflow name is missing from the status list.