Sonarcloud stoped posting analysis report in Github PR but still posts them in the actions

Hi @jonenst,

This is expected. On SonarCloud side we need to know to which your SonarCloud project maps to on GitHub side to post the status check.

Hi, thanks for your time and your answer. However, the situation is still unclear. From what I see

  • project bound to github repo, using on:push => status checks posted on PR
  • project NOT bound to github repo, using on:push => status checks NOT posted on PR
  • project NOT bound to github repo, using on:pr => status checks posted on PR

are all these expected ?

You said “Therefore we decided to remove the custom logic and to fully rely on the GitHub actions context” but it still works using “on: push” for bound projects, can you please elaborate ?

According to Binding an existing project to Github, it is not possible to bind a project to github after its creation, what are we supposed to do ? I would like to avoid deleting and reimporting projects that have a multiyear history and were created before the github importer existed.

Thanks in advance,

Also, if the ticket says that binding is not available yet, how do I have my projects bound? If that fixes the problem with notifications on push, I would definitely want them to be bound

From what I see, it also adds some hyperlinks on commit shas, maybe other things ?
To have some one my projects bounds (the small ones), I deleted them and recreated them (lost history…)

I’ve encountered the same problem and use cases as the OP. It was extremely frustrating to not only have this change made without any indication to consumers that this was changing, but to not provide any sort of override or optional solution to use previous behavior.

Aside from providing more opportunity of where and when to put PR comments, I think SonarCloud should also provide regular release notes, if there isn’t a place to view them already.


Wow, I spent few hours wondering why sonarcloudbot messages are gone…

Same, and aside from the unexpectedness of the change, the poor communication/notification of it added some salt to the wound.

I think I follow why the change was made at a high-level, but that doesn’t really obviate the need to work with the folks whose cases would be broken by it at least imo. Or maybe I just missed where messaging about this had been done previously perhaps?