Clean-up README

[shenxianpeng]

• 1. The current logo on cpp-linter-action is different from the logo on Org's home page. I prefer to move the old one.
• 2. Add an example snip about how to use cpp-linter as a package with other CI tools, like Jenkins. and which arguments they can not use. Will update the new repo of cpp-linter when it supports on-GitHub-based CI, and this repo is only used for github action.
• 3. Replace the second used by with chocolate-doom
• 4. Remove old and more link
• 5. Remove Gitpod badge. it not very necessary and it appears as two lines on the marketplace page https://github.com/marketplace/actions/c-c-lint-action

[2bndy5]

Add an example snip about how to use cpp-linter as a package with other CI tools, like Jenkins. and which arguments they can not use.

Off the top of my head, I think the args that can be used are

• ignore
• extensions
• version
• verbosity
• database
• repo-root
• tidy-checks
• style

The only args that cannot be used by non-GitHub-based CI would be anything dealing with the REST API:

• lines-changed-only
• files-changed-only
• thread-comments
• file-annotations (which is on by default)

There also might be a few kinks in the process that depend on GitHub env variables, but that might be easier to solve. To port the options in a universal VCS way, we'd have to start using git directly (especially for getting the diff), but I'm not sure how well a pull request would be supported with just git.

Also, git checkout of the repo would be an absolute requirement in non-GitHub-based CI. This is because we currently can download the files for a repo using the event payload (which is REST API dependent).

[2bndy5]

It looks like google/flatbuffers stopped using this action: google/flatbuffers@ebbed05 The reason isn't very descriptive, so IDK what prompted them to discontinue. 😢 I have a feeling it was related to #74 because google/flatbuffers@22d2a72 failed and I found this PR comment

We should probably remove the google/flatbuffers link in the README's "used by" section.

[shenxianpeng]

I also noticed yesterday...

I'm not sure why the cpp linter is failing :/ since there wasn't even a change in the headers for the swift cpp generator

is this a false positive?

[2bndy5]

I'm not sure why the cpp linter is failing :/ since there wasn't even a change in the headers for the swift cpp generator

is this a false positive?

Possibly. I can't view the workflow log, so IDK. My feeling is that the version they were running triggered #82 because they had lines-changed-only: true, but had not set files-changed-only, but files-changed-only is true by default as of #27. I really can't say for sure.