output the raw summary passed to GH Actions Job Summaries

[dom-colangelo]

Add the raw markdown sent to the GitHub Actions Job Summaries page as an output of the action. Allows other steps/jobs to use this raw output without needing to fetch it from the GH API (which currently does not have a working/documented implementation)

[woodruffw]

Thanks for the PR @dom-colangelo!

Just to make sure I understand: can you say a bit more about your use case here? Is the idea that you want to re-consume/emit the markdown summary elsewhere in your CI?

[dom-colangelo]

Is the idea that you want to re-consume/emit the markdown summary elsewhere in your CI?

Yup, exactly! I think this adds value to the action as the GH API docs don't seem to indicate any logical way to retrieve the summary value.

[woodruffw]

A few small nitpicks/comments.

[woodruffw]

Yup, exactly! I think this adds value to the action as the GH API docs don't seem to indicate any logical way to retrieve the summary value.

Makes sense, thank you!

[woodruffw]

LGTM overall (modulo one last nitpick)!

Could you add a short self-test for this as well? I think it'd be sufficient to tack it onto one of the pre-existing tests, and make it as simple as a grep for a string that we know will be in the Markdown summary.

[woodruffw]

Test failures look like this:

Error: Unable to process file command 'output' successfully.
Error: Invalid format 'Name | Version | ID | Fix Versions | Description'

I think we probably need to base64 encode the job summary before stuffing it into an output variable, similar to how the internal-be-careful-output is encoded.

(Actually, taking a step back: is there a reason you can't use that output? It's marked as internal-only right now, but the only difference between it and this new output is that it's "pure" markdown, whereas the Job Summary output also has a bit of HTML mixed in. If the "pure" output is okay, we can stabilize it instead.)

[dom-colangelo]

Ahh yeah, your observation & test output pointed me to the fact that multiline env vars in GH Actions are kind of a pain.
I can definitely work with internal-be-careful-output, can't think of a use case where someone would need the extra fluff of the Job Summary.

[woodruffw]

Sounds good! In that case, if you refactor this PR to make that output public rather than internal only, I'd be happy to merge that.

[dom-colangelo]

Done! I renamed the output summary-output-base64

[dom-colangelo]

I believe these self-tests are failing since I'm renaming the var they use for verifying as part of this PR

[woodruffw]

I believe these self-tests are failing since I'm renaming the var they use for verifying as part of this PR

That might be it. I'll take a closer look tonight 🙂.

(Sorry for the prolonged review here -- I don't have too many cycles for this action at the moment.)