Update output types and add some missig outputs #31
Conversation
|
I've had a look through the outputs and did my best to correct the types and add some missing ones in the versions present in the catalog. But I suggest you also look through them and verify, and not just skim over my changes here, to have more confidence by 4-eyes-principle. |
Vampire
force-pushed
the
vampire/issue-30
branch
from
cf030a8
to
7ddcca2
Compare
| outputs: | ||
| committed: | ||
| type: string | ||
| type: boolean |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I generally appreciate doing all of this! However, what stops me from reviewing is the amount of manual checking that we'd need to do to meaningfully review it. That's why I'd first like to:
- implement Add CI checks #2
- I thought about a feature that would be helpful with maintaining this catalog, but might be a bit controversial: for each input and output, let's have a GitHub Actions workflow that puts its description in the comment. It's usually what is enough to check to infer the type, and if we have this information locally and always fresh, it would speed up reviewing contributions to this repo. WDYT? (Not asking you to implement it, brainstorming for now)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean as PR-review-comments? Might not be a bad idea. Why should that be controversial?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually meant YAML comments since they may be easier to manage than GitHub comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see, then I'm not sure how much I like it.
This is mainly for reviewing PRs, isn't it?
So as PR comments it makes sense to me so that you do not need to look at the action's YAML manually.
But duplicating the description in the typing in an automated way, I'm not so sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, it can be a good start to have it for PRs only. I also meant being able to quickly check if the types on the main branch are correct, but you're right it's a bit itchy.
Fixes #30