As @enescakir explained neatly in #253 this action is not actually running editorconfig-checker, but merely making sure it is available to be used in further steps.
This pattern is usually described as a setup action - see setup-node which we use.
I would propose that we rename the action to setup-editorconfig-checker to better reflect this to our users.
The only drawback - according to https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/renaming-a-repository every workflow using this action would need to switch to the new name. So the only way to do this would be reuploading the repo under the new name, adding a job summary pointing to the new repo in the old repo, then archiving the current repo.
What are your thoughts?
As @enescakir explained neatly in #253 this action is not actually running editorconfig-checker, but merely making sure it is available to be used in further steps.
This pattern is usually described as a setup action - see
setup-nodewhich we use.I would propose that we rename the action to
setup-editorconfig-checkerto better reflect this to our users.The only drawback - according to https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/renaming-a-repository every workflow using this action would need to switch to the new name. So the only way to do this would be reuploading the repo under the new name, adding a job summary pointing to the new repo in the old repo, then archiving the current repo.
What are your thoughts?