Hello @RichiCoder1. Thank you for your feature request. Actually we had similar proposal to enable corepack by default. I think we should reinvestigate adding corepack support. We'll ping you about its results.

@dmitry-shibanov apologies for not seeing that closed ticket! I very much hope ya'll do. While technically experimental, it's being officially recommended and there's no (current) way to use both this action and corepack without some awkward contortions. Looking forward to the outcome!

I use corepack locally and hope we can integrate it with GitHub Actions :)

If I'm understanding correctly, right now you can run setup-node, set up Corepack, and then run the standalone cache action. So is the benefit of this just to be able to do it all inside the setup-node action?

Thank @brcrista ! Could you share a minimal config to achieve this? I may not understand how to set up corepack manually here.

I don't know either, I was just summarizing my understanding from the issue description.

The semi-simple way w/ caching and something like pnpm would be:

- run: corepack enable
- uses: actions/setup-node@v3
  with:
    node-version: 16
    cache: pnpm
- run: pnpm i

I think that may be faintly fragile as corepack enable operates on the built in node and not the potentially installed one. It does however fix an issue where setup-node will look for a pnpm exe/cache that doesn't exist yet when setting up cache I think.

@brcrista and your understanding is correct. Ideally with some extra smarts enabled by knowing exactly which packageManager is in use.

@RichiCoder1 thanks for you notification, it was a good point to review, but we should not go ahead of nodejs team and turn on corepack by default while it is not default for the nodejs itself.
The consequences of having corepack enabled are risky for some builds and adding new input is not necessary complication of the action and its documentation.
In the current state of the corepack to have an explicit simple step enabling the feature seems to be optimal solution.

I have to reject the feature request and close the issue, but please feel free to reopen it or create new one in case you still have some problems.