Skip to content

fix(security-scans): use step outcome instead of conclusion for snyk#392

Merged
mnencia merged 1 commit intomainfrom
dev/fix-snyk-outcome
Feb 16, 2026
Merged

fix(security-scans): use step outcome instead of conclusion for snyk#392
mnencia merged 1 commit intomainfrom
dev/fix-snyk-outcome

Conversation

@mnencia
Copy link
Member

@mnencia mnencia commented Feb 13, 2026

The Snyk step uses continue-on-error: true, which overrides conclusion to success even when Snyk fails. The downstream steps checking steps.snyk.conclusion would always run, causing the pipeline to break when Snyk didn't produce a sarif file.

Use outcome instead, which reflects the actual result of the step before continue-on-error is applied.

The Snyk step uses `continue-on-error: true`, which overrides
`conclusion` to `success` even when Snyk fails. The downstream
steps checking `steps.snyk.conclusion` would always run, causing
the pipeline to break when Snyk didn't produce a sarif file.

Use `outcome` instead, which reflects the actual result of the
step before `continue-on-error` is applied.

Signed-off-by: Marco Nenciarini <marco.nenciarini@enterprisedb.com>
@dosubot dosubot bot added size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. github_actions Pull requests that update GitHub Actions code labels Feb 13, 2026
@dosubot dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Feb 16, 2026
@mnencia mnencia merged commit 167acba into main Feb 16, 2026
7 checks passed
@mnencia mnencia deleted the dev/fix-snyk-outcome branch February 16, 2026 15:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

github_actions Pull requests that update GitHub Actions code lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

Comments