Formatter Action doesn't post comments when made from a fork

[oxinabox]

When a PR is made from a fork the Formatter failed by doesn't post comments with clickable suggestions: see: https://github.com/JuliaDiff/ChainRulesCore.jl/pull/488/checks?check_run_id=3854350212#step:5:187

reviewdog: This GitHub token doesn't have write permission of Review API 1, so reviewdog will report results via logging command 2 and create annotations similar to github-pr-check reporter as a fallback.

I am not sure if we can raise the permission on the GITHUB_TOKEN on a fork, or if we can issue another token that has that permission?

But checks that fail without being easy to act upon suck. This isn't super hard to do locally, I think it is just

using Pkg: @pkg_str
pkg"activate --temp"
pkg"add JuliaFormatter"
using JuliaFormatter; format("."; verbose=true)

But that is still work.

And especially for PR from newcomers (not @mcabbott :joy: ) who will always be making a PR from a fork, we want things to be smooth.

[st--]

In case it's not easy to figure out how to get the suggestions on fork PRs: how about providing Makefiles for this - e.g. to allow make format (make is available on any unix-style system) to simplify the process ... would that be something you could see helping new contributors? (if not I'll be forevermore quiet on this topic; I've previously&elsewhere suggested this and it did not seem well-received - "just use VSCode" ...:))

[devmotion]

Didn't want to chime in here initially, but I still think it's more accessible if one provides instructions for how to format the code with Julia (and possibly the most common editor for Julia): not everyone uses a unix system or is familiar with the commandline or make but I think one can assume that every contributor knows how to start Julia (or the editor) and run Julia code.

(BTW I assume you saw that the required changes are still displayed in a somewhat nice way in the "Files" tab, although of course it's still not possible to just accept these changes)

[devmotion]

I wonder if it would be sufficient to use https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target instead of pull_request or if this would break the reviewdog action. If it doesn't work it would be useful if reviewdog would add support for pull_request_target if possible.