The Github Actions documentation mentions the repository_dispatch event in the External Events section. The table in this sections says that the GITHUB_REF points to the “Branch that received dispatch”. My question now is: How can I specify the branch when sending the repository_dispatch event? The API documentation does not mention any branch related input argument.
Thanks!
Hi @phil-opp,
Thank you for being here! I wish I had better news for you, the repository_dispatch only triggers on the master branch, and it is not possible to specify a branch. We have received several pieces of feedback about this limitation and have an internal issue tracking a feature request, to which I’ve added your feedback.
Thanks for clarifying! Perhaps the documentation at https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/events-that-trigger-workflows#external-events-repository_dispatch should be updated to reflect this (the GITHUB_REF column says “Branch that received dispatch” instead of “default branch”).
Also, when the documentation links “Webhook Event Payload: repository_dispatch” through to the repositorydispatchevent type on the v3 version of the documentation, it makes it seem like I can use the payload body there, but trying to use branch gives:
{
"message": "Invalid request.\n\n\"branch\" is not a permitted key.",
"documentation_url": "https://developer.github.com/v3"
}
Both are a bit confusing, would be good to update if only default branch is possible.
My problem with the repository dispatch is that it needs a token with repo permission. Isn’t it possible to severely limit the scope of the token in order to avoid consequences if it gets compromised?
This seems like a different problem, so it’s probably better to create a new topic for it.
Since we need this a lot…
two questions:
Our situation is as follows:
This is a simplified explaination, in reality we now have 4 repos that inter-depend and that number will probably grow. This will make the baby-sitting very time-consuming.
is there any update on this issue? it makes the repository_dispatch useless if only triggered on master (or default) branch
@andreagriffiths11 Any update on this?
This is available in GitLab and allows creating powerful workflows and easy iteration on them (as you don’t have to commit temp workflows to master while developing on feature branch)
That’s great feedback. Our team recently updated the documentation to include a note below the repository_dispatch documentation:
Note: This event will only trigger a workflow run if the workflow file is on the
masteror default branch.
Here’s an example repository that showcases using the repository dispatch event and actions/checkout@v2 specifying a branch in the client_payload field:
In the workflow file, it’s possible to leverage that input to checkout a specific branch (like what’s defined on these lines of the workflow file).
However, the Actions tab will associate the workflow run triggered by a repository dispatch to the default branch (in this case, master) rather than the specified branch as evidenced in this query.
Hello! Neither @andreagriffiths11 or I are able to speak to upcoming product updates. However, any new ships are either published in the form of a changelog entry or an article in The GitHub Blog.
Today, the best place to share requests for new or updated features is through our official product feedback form. Our product team working on Actions monitors that channels and considers each entry, but they may not be able to respond to every submission.
Thanks for your reply!
Unfortunately, the workaround you mentioned has a big drawback: It runs the workflow file specified on the default branch, not the workflow file of the checked out branch. So this only really works if the two branches have the same build/test instructions.
Some examples where this doesn’t work:
docs branch with a workflow file that converts some markdown documentation to HTML. Using your workaround, GitHub Actions would try to run the normal build instructions of the default branch (e.g. compile some code) on the markdown sources, which of course doesn’t work.
So this workaround only works in the very specific case where both branches have exactly the same build instructions and use no advanced features such as skipping steps based on the current branch name.
To solve this problem for more use case, we need some way to trigger a workflow run on a different branch using the workflow file of that branch. I’ll send a feature request for that through the form you linked and I encourage others to do so too.
A new workflow_dispatch event can be used to trigger workflow for non-default branch.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/events-that-trigger-workflows#workflow_dispatch
@nitive - Ah, thanks for mentioning that! Our team also published a changelog entry for this feature that might be worth checking out as well. 
That’s in a simple single sentence exactly why a ci/cd tool would need this capability… Please Github…
But this alternative could make it. It would make sense then for Github to display the checkout ref on the Actions tab to give more insight about what happened on our runs.
A new
workflow_dispatchevent can be used to trigger workflow for non-default branch.
Are you sure that this can address the problem discussed here? I have tried this and failed. Here is what I did:
.github/workflows/update.yml on a non-default branch, called workflowtest.I followed Actions - GitHub Docs and tried
$ curl -H "Authorization: token ${GITHUB_API_TOKEN}" https://api.github.com/repos/jgehrcke/foo/actions/workflows/update.yml/dispatches -d '{"ref":"workflowtest"}'
{
"message": "Not Found",
"documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event"
}
It seems like update.yml isn’t known to the system yet, because it’s not on the default branch.
The Actions tab in the UI of course also doesn’t show the workflow yet.
@phil-opp has tried hard to clarify the challenge he’d like to overcome:
we need some way to trigger a workflow run on a different branch using the workflow file of that branch
This is really important for the developer experience around building workflows/actions. I’ve commented on that before, here: How to develop (iterate on, debug!) a workflow file in a non-default branch? - #3 by brightran
I don’t want to commit to main/master before having tested the workflow properly.
@jgehrcke we found a workaround to trigger workflow_dispatch workflow committed to non-default branch.
push trigger like this onename: My workflow
on:
push:
jobs:
build-tools:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- run: echo 1
push to workflow_dispatch commit and push the changeWe are not happy that we have to make an extra commit every time, but at least we don’t have to commit workflow to default branch
I am having the same issue but in my case the workflow yaml is on the default branch main
I can dispatch the workflow if I specify ref as main or refs/heads/main
but it fails if I try any other branch
$ curl -X POST -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" -H 'Authorization: token ***' https://api.github.com/repos/HarikrishnanBalagopal/yohoo/actions/workflows/fooworkflow.yml/dispatches -d '{"ref":"refs/heads/foo"}'
{
"message": "Workflow does not have 'workflow_dispatch' trigger",
"documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event"
}
To be clear this error is different from the error for non existent workflows:
$ curl -X POST -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" -H 'Authorization: token ***' https://api.github.com/repos/HarikrishnanBalagopal/yohoo/actions/workflows/fooworkflowsss.yml/dispatches -d '{"ref":"refs/heads/hmmm"}'
{
"message": "Not Found",
"documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event"
}
and this error is also different from the error for non-existent branches:
$ curl -X POST -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3+json" -H 'Authorization: token ***' https://api.github.com/repos/HarikrishnanBalagopal/yohoo/actions/workflows/fooworkflow.yml/dispatches -d '{"ref":"refs/heads/weird"}'
{
"message": "No ref found for: refs/heads/weird",
"documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event"
}
I got it working after committing the workflow yaml to both the default branch and the branch you want to run on.
So in my case had to commit to both main and foo
Whoa, I hope Github developers make this less of a mess.
Say I modify 2, i.e. the workflow files are not synced. Which one gets run? It appear 2 gets run. So I’m thinking 1. could be a LOT simpler.