feat: conventional commit check

[GMKrieger]

Updated the contributing file and created a github action that enforces the conventional commit format on commit messages

Closes #31

[tuler]

It would be better if the CONTRIBUTING.md file is the same for all cartesi repos, to facilitate consistency. But there are sections in there that are repo specific, like scopes and absolute links.

[gligneul]

It would be better if the CONTRIBUTING.md file is the same for all cartesi repos, to facilitate consistency. But there are sections in there that are repo specific, like scopes and absolute links.

@tuler are you suggesting that we add this to another file?

[tuler]

The scopes change a lot over time, during project refactoring. We should minimize the duplication of valid scopes definition. I suggest to create a .scopes text file, under .github, and use that in the CI process to validate commits. The .md files could explain the scopes validation process, but refer to .github/.scopes file for the actual valid scopes.

[marcelstanley]

Please remember to apply the updated commit rules to this PR itself.

[GMKrieger]

Please remember to apply the updated commit rules to this PR itself.

It already does that, you can look at the checks and see it in action : )

[marcelstanley]

Please remember to apply the updated commit rules to this PR itself.

It already does that, you can look at the checks and see it in action : )

Sure, but I was just being a bit picky about using the imperative mood on a5e2f6e49f548994bb260775d1eb161ccd0ceb7d ;-)

[gligneul]

Feel free to rebase on top of next so we can merge it before the 0.9.0 release.

[tuler]

Will fixup! commits work with this?

[gligneul]

@tuler fixup commits already don't work with conventional commits.

@GMKrieger, the commit message needs to be more accurate because we already have a conventional commit check. It should be something like "feat: check conventional commits scopes."

[tuler]

Not to add even more to a 3-weeks PR, but IMHO checking scopes is overrated, for a 3-weeks PR 🫠

[GMKrieger]

Not to add even more to a 3-weeks PR, but IMHO checking scopes is overrated, for a 3-weeks PR 🫠

It was supposed to be a quick update, but everyone had strong opinions for the contributing document going forward, from styling to function to format, so it took a while for everyone to voice their wishes and the updates be done.

Since this is a point of entry for the project going forward, specially in an open source world, it's understandable that we should be all aligned and happy with this, so that there are fewer stresses and maintenance in the future.