toolkit, core and possibly exit package should be merged about toolkit HOT 7 CLOSED

packages/toolkit contains a reference to the octokit/rest package which not all actions need. Perhaps we need a better name for that package that indicates it is primarily designed for working with the GitHub rest api.

from toolkit.

@chrispat - right - that's important. In our previous discussions, we discussed calling that package github (since it's all about github interactions and context). Outside of that, moving exit to core is the other thing that seems right since how you exit an exit seems like a core concept. Either that or we break out other core actions as separate packages - just looking for consistency.

from toolkit.

I'm going to let @damccorm create a proposal as a PR and then we can iterate from there. I think this issue and previous discussions capture what we need to do.

from toolkit.

I know we went through a set of design discussions early on and this is what we had decided on. However, it does feel like we have some extra packages that don't layer particularly well.

All types of actions whether for SDLC or CI/CD will likely need the core and exit functionality for logging and indicating their exit status. Given that I think it makes the most sense to merge exit into core. Also, neither core nor exit stands on their own outside of an action.

After that, we have some utility packages that help out with running tools (exec) and common GNU file operations (io). For the most part, these feel like general utility packages that could stand on their own outside of GitHub actions.

toolkit adds an exit package that really just adds some additional logging. If we find that useful let's just make that part of exit in core.

There is a smattering of other stuff in tool kit around easy running of an async function and required environment variables that feel like they should just be part of core.

The last piece that is there is the octokit api. I think we should have a package called actions/github that makes it easy to get an authenticated client based in the GITHUB_TOKEN secret.

from toolkit.

This all sounds good to me. I think we should get @jclem to weigh in, and assuming no issues, ship it. I'm (im)patiently waiting to get the tarballs out of the template repo and into GPR :)

from toolkit.

Yep, @jclem and I already had a discussion.

from toolkit.

Closing here since #21 has been merged. #23 is follow up work

from toolkit.