Misleading examples for github.ref

[dimaqq]

Code of Conduct

• I have read and agree to the GitHub Docs project's Code of Conduct

What article on docs.github.com is affected?

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/accessing-contextual-information-about-workflow-runs#github-context

What part(s) of the article would you like to see updated?

The ref given is fully-formed, meaning that for branches the format is refs/heads/<branch_name>, for pull requests it is refs/pull/<pr_number>/merge, and for tags it is refs/tags/<tag_name>. For example, refs/heads/feature-branch-1.

Additional information

Surely github.ref is not refs/pull/<pr_number>/merge for an outstanding pull request.

My colleague tripped over reading this bit in canonical/operator#1451

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this issue. A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[dimaqq]

Clarification:"
The difference is between on: pull_request and on: pull_request_target.

[nguyenalex836]

Thank you for raising this issue! I'll get this triaged for review ✨ Our team will provide feedback regarding the best next steps for this issue - thanks for your patience! 💛

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening an issue! We've triaged this issue for technical review by a subject matter expert 👀

[jc-clark]

Hey @dimaqq! Thanks for finding this. We agree that the docs should be updated.

What do you think of updating the ref description reusable with something like this?

for pull requests events except pull_request_target, it is refs/pull/<pr_number>/merge.
pull_request_target events have the ref from the base branch.

This reusable is in the table here and in "Store information in variables"

[dimaqq]

Sounds good :)

[nguyenalex836]

@dimaqq Awesome to hear! Would you be willing to submit a PR for this update? Otherwise, we'll open this issue up to the community 💛