Please describe the feature you have in mind and explain what the current shortcomings are?
The implementation of github workflows and actions should follow clearly defined rules to allow for conistent development and code quality.
Therefore a docuementation needs to be written about the gerneal structure, testing and security requriments.
Right now anyone could just implement whatever they want however they wont.
The scope of intended easu-to-use customizations also needs to be part of that documentation.
How would you imagine the implementation of the feature?
To ensure this kind of consistency and quality, these points should be defined
Requirements for repositories to use a certain action
Requirements, when to implement a workflow
Requirements, how to implement
Primary code language (most likely bash)
Code structure best practises
Usage of gh vs. git and when to use what
Requirements, when to implement a dedicated github action
Usage of python for and in actions
Testing stages
How to local unit-testing
How to local integration testing
How to github based unit testing
How to github based integartion testing
Define security measuremnts for workflows
Check for permissions, user access and repo settings in automated way
Are there any labels you wish to add?
[X] I have added the relevant labels to the feature request.
Describe alternatives you've considered:
Nope
Additional context:
Since actions are supposed to automate tidious developmnet work - these workflows need to be standardized first.
To achive this standardization in a consistent way the requirements need to be defined first.
Is there an existing issue for this?
Please describe the feature you have in mind and explain what the current shortcomings are?
The implementation of github workflows and actions should follow clearly defined rules to allow for conistent development and code quality. Therefore a docuementation needs to be written about the gerneal structure, testing and security requriments.
Right now anyone could just implement whatever they want however they wont. The scope of intended easu-to-use customizations also needs to be part of that documentation.
How would you imagine the implementation of the feature?
To ensure this kind of consistency and quality, these points should be defined
Are there any labels you wish to add?
Describe alternatives you've considered:
Nope
Additional context:
Since actions are supposed to automate tidious developmnet work - these workflows need to be standardized first. To achive this standardization in a consistent way the requirements need to be defined first.