Upping the checkout action in the swagger validation to remove a warning

[jimbobbennett]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

The swagger validation action was missing a name, and this is added here:

Becomes:

Also this action was using v3 of the checkout action, giving a warning suggesting an upgrade to v4.

This upgrades the action version to remove this warning.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

No issue raised as this is a cleanup PR

Special notes for reviewers:

None

Changelog input

No changeling needed - this is an internal change

[linux-foundation-easycla[bot]]

• :white_check_mark:login: jimbobbennett / (f0696a55059aeb552e11c2678b629b231921d87d)
• :white_check_mark:login: jimbobbennett / (f0696a55059aeb552e11c2678b629b231921d87d, 06393c2edff2797a90a4ab2be9ea3cf05bb57032)
• :white_check_mark:login: jimbobbennett / (f0696a55059aeb552e11c2678b629b231921d87d, 06393c2edff2797a90a4ab2be9ea3cf05bb57032, 6962e8a375003aee6ed1f158b186720bdb1c8bae)

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

LGTM

But: @RandyLevensalor @eric-murray do we need the Swagger Editor Validator still in addition to MegaLinter/Spectral? Just asking as https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/tree/main/artifacts/linting_rules does not have it.

[jimbobbennett]

LGTM

But: @RandyLevensalor @eric-murray do we need the Swagger Editor Validator still in addition to MegaLinter/Spectral? Just asking as https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/tree/main/artifacts/linting_rules does not have it.

The spectral action is workflow dispatch only, and shows 20 warnings and 2 hints when run. Would these need to be cleaned up first?

[RandyLevensalor]

LGTM

But: @RandyLevensalor @eric-murray do we need the Swagger Editor Validator still in addition to MegaLinter/Spectral? Just asking as https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/tree/main/artifacts/linting_rules does not have it.

Since we include swagger editor in the documentation in the readme, I like this check to help validate that the link from our docs will work.

To that point, I think we should add https://github.com/marketplace/actions/redoc-cli-github-action for redoc as well. If there's agreement, I can add this in a separate pr.

Maybe adding these checks and the links in the readme would be worth including in commonalities.

[hdamker]

To that point, I think we should add https://github.com/marketplace/actions/redoc-cli-github-action for redoc as well. If there's agreement, I can add this in a separate pr.

This action is not a pure check, but creates a static HTML file, if I read it correctly.

But anyway, we should open an issue if we want to discuss that further, here we are ready to merge, I suggest.