Any idea why?
Any help is very much appreciated!
Yes that’s true!
So what is the default behaviour then?
I want it to be deployed on push.
Thanks!
Do you intend to use GitHub Actions?
GitHub Actions, will also trigger a deployment with new commits (mainly, it allows building your app in GitHub instead of your server)
Okay thank you!
So i want the stage branch to deploy on push but on main branch i want to deploy on manual button click.
Both apps should be deployed with GHA.
Any way to do this?
I would recommend creating two apps for such a purpose. One can be staging.example.com and will point to your staging branch and the other can be example.com and will point to your main branch.
And you can enable GHA for both.
Yes. But then GHA leads to automatic deployment on push, doesn’t it?
I only want “deploy on push” for the staging site with both pages having GHA enabled.
Is that possible?
Deploy to push is enabled implicitly for the staging site in your case, if that makes sense. This is done on the workflow file itself.
When Cleavr enables GitHub Actions, it sets the action to be run on just the branch you have set. So the GitHub Action is triggered only for that specific branch.
If you want to disable it completely on the push, you’d have to tweak the workflow file (probably just deleting push block might work). Then you can trigger the deployment manually.
We are open to any ideas you might have to improve this experience, of course!
Thank you for clarifying this topic.
indeed this goes against the easy usability inside cleavr having to leave cleavr for this additional action (that you are used to do with a switch which is now hidden).
At least the switch button should be disabled as hiding it completely leads to user confusion. Maybe even a tooltip with “Push to deploy is not supported in conjunction with GHA”.
Now the approach that i would like even more:
Bring back the switch and on true check if GHA is enabled. If so:
commit the GHA-script which has push to deploy enabled.
if the switch is turned off and user clicked “update” then recommit the GHA-script with push to deploy disabled.
Basically every click on update button on bottom right commits the new workflow file and removes the old one. (in case of changes only of course)
Same with the build command right now: Once you activate GHA and make a change to the build command afterwards it’s not transfered over to the GHA-script. → Leads to user frustration like i was yesterday 
So there are a lot of options that should trigger a recommit of the GHA script according to the settings you updated on the webapp.
Not sure how hard this is to implement.
Hope it was clear enough to fully understand what i mean.
1 Like
Great! Most, if not all, your suggestions shouldn’t be that hard to implement. We’ll add them to our backlog. Thanks for the suggestions, you are awesome 
1 Like
Hi again,
About letting GitHub do the build.
Will this take any pressure of from the actual Cleavr server?
I thought the “power” were taken from in my case the Hetzner server?
What i like with the Cleavr Deploy is that i can follow the steps including the build part. I guess that if i let GitHub do the build I have to look someware there for any build progress/ log?
Have a nice day
Exactly. You take load from the server when building with GHA which is actually the whole point in building on github servers.
You can therefore take a server with less power for serving your site which is great.
You can check the status of the github action workflow page like so:
https://github.com/[organization]/[repo-name]/actions
1 Like
Thank you @sebbler
I have a separate servers for each customer with 3 aps on it api, admin and www so i have quite powerfull servers so the power is enough for a few deployments here and there.
I just wondered if Cleavr and it’s server has any gain in us using GHA?