[#1771] Add tip on generating report via reposense-action

[tlylt]

Fixes #1771

Proposed commit message

Generating RepoSense reports via GitHub Actions requires forking of the
template publish-RepoSense repo. It also only supports publishing with
GitHub Pages.

This process is more complicated than utilizing published actions on the
marketplace. It also requires direct edits to the script files for more
customization.

Let's document an available alternative via a community-published action
for interested users to explore.

The published action can be used in the same directory as the user's
project and support customization via action arguments. It also supports
surge.sh as an alternative publishing platform.

Other information

To manually test reposense-action, follow the instructions in the README

The action itself contains a test with the generated report published on GitHub Pages and surge.sh

Real-life usage (by myself) can also be seen in this yaml and the generated site

[HCY123902]

Thanks for the contribution. I personally think this is a quite helpful change. The only concern that I have is that when a user generates a report in this way, it can overwrite others' reports for the same repository. Let's ask for professor Damith's thoughts about it since this is related to user experience

[tlylt]

The only concern that I have is that when a user generates a report in this way, it can overwrite others' reports for the same repository.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

• As in two users of the same repository will want to generate two separate reports on the same repo, with different settings?
• Or that one user generates an report, another user updates the repo and updates the report, but that should not happen? (the report should not be refreshed)

I am not sure I understand the given scenario to provide clarifications.

Let's ask for professor Damith's thoughts about it.

Sure.

[HCY123902]

The only concern that I have is that when a user generates a report in this way, it can overwrite others' reports for the same repository.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

• As in two users of the same repository will want to generate two separate reports on the same repo, with different settings?
• Or that one user generates an report, another user updates the repo and updates the report, but that should not happen? (the report should not be refreshed)

I am not sure I understand the given scenario to provide clarifications.

Oh I was referring to the first scenario that you mentioned. However, I do not think this is really a significant issue as long as the users coordinated with each other.

[damithc]

@tlylt thanks for this idea and the implementation. Yes, I think it would be nice to have this option for users.
I assume you propose moving the action repo to the reposense org?

[tlylt]

@tlylt thanks for this idea and the implementation. Yes, I think it would be nice to have this option for users. I assume you propose moving the action repo to the reposense org?

Hi @damithc, I was proposing either documentation or adopting the repo. I'm fine with either. Since there wasn't a clear decision from the RepoSense team in #1771, I am proposing this documentation PR for visibility.

[yhtMinceraft1010X]

Hi @damithc, I was proposing either documentation or adopting the repo. I'm fine with either. Since there wasn't a clear decision from the RepoSense team in #1771, I am proposing this documentation PR for visibility.

Personally I think we should adopt the repo since it sounds like a good direction to take RepoSense in.

[dcshzj]

Yes, I think moving this action into the RepoSense GitHub organization would be good as well. @tlylt are you okay with initiating the transfer of the repository to reposense and also releasing the code under the MIT license?

[tlylt]

Yes, I think moving this action into the RepoSense GitHub organization would be good as well. @tlylt are you okay with initiating the transfer of the repository to reposense and also releasing the code under the MIT license?

Sure I can add an MIT license to it. I think I can request a transfer to the reposense org, just not too sure how to deal with the part where this action is already published on the marketplace. Not sure if that affects anything. Do you happen to know anything about that @dcshzj?

If not I guess we can make the transfer and figure it out along the way.

[dcshzj]

I'm not entire sure about the publishing to the actions marketplace part, but I think it should be okay to initiate the transfer first and figure out if there are any issues that arise. Otherwise, we can un-publish the release for the action and re-publish it once the transfer is completed.

[tlylt]

Hi @dcshzj, I will need the temporary access here: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/transferring-a-repository#repository-transfers-and-organizations

[dcshzj]

@tlylt I have just invited you, please try again. I will remove you once the transfer is complete.

[tlylt]

Thanks, @dcshzj, think there are a few things to be sorted out for changing links/references, etc. This PR should still be gd to go tho.

[dcshzj]

LGTM! I think in the future, we should move the documentation for the GitHub action into the user guide so that it is all in a single place, but this is sufficient for now.

[github-actions]

The following links are for previewing this pull request:

• Dashboard Preview: https://dashboard-1858-pr-reposense-reposense.surge.sh
• Docs Preview: https://docs-1858-pr-reposense-reposense.surge.sh