Use GHA's token #310
Draft
Use GHA's token #310
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
GHA provides a token itself, we don't need to generate one. This is more-fine grained, easier to change if needed, and more secure. I think the existing `contents: read` is sufficient, but it might not be. We'll see.
|
Oh, the script needs a username. I'll think on this. |
|
Ok, so the GITHUB_TOKEN is for a builtin github app, not your own account, so that i.e., contributing to a project with extensive doesn't use up your personal rate. Thus, there's not a username associated with it. However, I think we don't need a username to make authenticated requests, do we? Could we make it optional? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
GHA provides a token itself, we don't need to generate one. This is more-fine grained, easier to change if needed, and more secure.
I think the existing
contents: readis sufficient, but it might not be. We'll see.Based on #309 (comment).