✨ Add option to use original commit message

[Nef10]

There are a lot of edge cases to consider for this feature, and I hope I covered all of them. The following are the once I tested:

With COMMIT_EACH_FILE set to true:

Test	Original Message used	Commit(s)	Action Run(s)	opened PR
Simple file change	✅	Link	Link	Link
Remove file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Add file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change to sync config	❌	Link	Link	Link
Change of file with different destination name	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of file in syncronized folder	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of multiple files in syncronized folder	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of files in different syncronized groups	✅ / ✅	Link	Link	Link
Change file together with non-syncronized file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Triggered by manually running the workflow	❌	In target repo	Link	Link
Push two commits up at once, changing same file	❌	1 2	Link	Link
Push two commits up at once, changing different file	❌	1 2	Link	Link
Previous PR not merged different file	❌ / ✅	1 2	1 2	Link
Previous PR not merged same file	❌	1 2	1 2	Link

With COMMIT_EACH_FILE set to false:

Test	Original Message used	Commit(s)	Action Run(s)	opened PR
Simple file change	✅	Link	Link	Link
Remove file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Add file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change to sync config	❌	Link	Link	Link
Change of file with different destination name	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of file in syncronized folder	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of multiple files in syncronized folder	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change of files in different syncronized groups	✅	Link	Link	Link
Change file together with non-syncronized file	✅	Link	Link	Link
Triggered by manually running the workflow	❌	In target repo	Link	Link
Push two commits up at once, changing same file	❌	1 2	Link	Link
Push two commits up at once, changing different file	❌	1 2	Link	Link
Previous PR not merged different file	❌	1 2	1 2	Link
Previous PR not merged same file	❌	1 2	1 2	Link

[BetaHuhn]

Awesome, thanks for this great PR! Really appreciate the amount of work you put into this, especially for the testing!

Will run a few tests myself and release it asap.

[BetaHuhn]

Manually creating/running all those tests for each change we introduce takes a lot of time, maybe we need to think about automating it with some kind of unit tests in the future. Probably not so easy to test as other actions since we are not only interacting with the GitHub API but also performing git operations.

What do you think?

[BetaHuhnBot]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.12.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

[Nef10]

Yes, definitely agree - when I started I did not think that there were this many cases to consider, otherwise I would have probably automated something from the beginning.

There are two parts: We should have some unit tests for the functions e.g. parseGitDiffOutput should be simple to test. As you did not have any tests yet, I did not wanted to go go ahead and set everything up (testing framework, changes to action workflows, ...)

But the bigger part is probably having proper integration tests. It might be some work but it roughly could work like this:

1. You have two dedicated repos, just like I used for my manual tests.
2. The tests would need access with a GitHub app to interact with them. (As a the default GitHub token would not trigger workflows)
3. Create a dedicated branch on the second repo to run tests agains
4. Than you can create a branch on the first repo and configure it to use the action version from the PR branch, targeting the new branch from above
5. You check out the repo
6. Do the changes (like I did) and push them up
7. Wait for the PR to be created, check the message (and maybe content?) via the GitHub API
8. Merge PR and repeat from step 6

With this setup you can probably tests all feature of this action.