Please document the evaluation priorities of operators

[fabricetriboix]

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/reference/workflows-and-actions/expressions

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

Hello,

This page documents expressions supported by GitHub Actions. However, it doesn't explain the evaluation priorities of the various operators. For example, in C/C++, && has priority over ==, so an expression like

a == b && c

will certainly not yield the intended result. In C/C++, you probably want to write something like this:

(a == b) && c

But I have seen workflow files containing expressions such as

a == b && c

and apparently yielding the expected result.

Please clarify this by documenting the operators' priorities.

Additional information

No response

[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.

[Sharra-writes]

@fabricetriboix Thanks for opening an issue! From a cursory Google search, it looks like YAML doesn't impose a priority. It may vary in Actions based on the runner environment? I've asked for clarification from people who know a lot more about this than I do, and I'll let you know what I find out.

[github-actions]

A stale label has been added to this issue, because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. If you think this issue should remain open, please add a new comment.

[fabricetriboix]

@Sharra-writes Of course YAML doesn't define evaluation priorities, YAML knows nothing about expressions. This is something that should be fairly easy to document, why would the github team not document this?

[Sharra-writes]

@fabricetriboix We're considering this among our other priorities and will proceed as we think appropriate.

[subatoi]

@fabricetriboix Please accept my apologies for the late conclusion. Due to the nature of this request, we can't open this up to contributors, and since it isn't highlighting a specific flaw in the content but is in fact a feature request, I can only register it as an issue to examine and prioritise internally in the context of improvements to this documentation as a whole.

I'd recommend opening a community discussion, as those are much more appropriate in terms of helping us develop a clear idea of where users are seeing gaps in our content, and where we can better serve them.

Apologies that this isn't the answer you were looking for, but I'm going to go ahead and close this out 🙇