Get TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST_SHA or the commit sha

[jennifer-shehane]

• close Travis PR commit sha is not correctly gathered for status checks with GitHub Integration #5728

User facing changelog

Cypress now captures the SHA of the build generated through Travis CI during pull requests. This should resolve issues with Cypress status checks sometimes not running with our GitHub Integration.

Additional Details

I experimented here and verified a few things:

• The TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST_SHA and TRAVIS_COMMIT are different when initiated by the Travis PR build
• The TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST_SHA is empty when initiated by a Travis commit build (this means we can write an || statement and always get the correct one)
• Passing the TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST_SHA to the COMMIT_SHA for Cypress use initiates the status check during a PR build (previously did not run any status check on PR initiated builds)

How has the user experience changed?

N/A

PR Tasks

• Have tests been added/updated?
• Has the original issue been tagged with a release in ZenHub?
• [NA] Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?
• [NA] Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?
• [NA] Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?

[cypress-bot]

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

• Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
• Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

• The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
• The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

• The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
• Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
• The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

• The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
• Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
• The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
• New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
• There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

• The change does not reimplement code.
• There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
• There is no redundant or duplicate code.
• There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
• Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

• The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

[cypress]

---

Test summary

3505 • 0 • 45 • 0

---

Run details

Project	cypress
Status	Passed
Commit	0920315
Started	Nov 18, 2019 8:19 PM
Ended	Nov 18, 2019 8:23 PM
Duration	04:07 💡
OS	Linux Debian - 9.8
Browser	Multiple

View run in Cypress Dashboard ➡️

---

This comment has been generated by cypress-bot as a result of this project's GitHub integration settings. You can manage this integration in this project's settings in the Cypress Dashboard

[bahmutov]

i love it