Track improvements to github actions

[liaochris]

In this issue I will track "nice-to-have" desired improvements to github actions.

1. In the comment-called runtime summary, link the original comment that called it + tag the commenter.
2. We check for whether extant files exist in scons. We don't check for whether the scons structure aligns with the directory. We could fix this by including a scons -n call in the github actions.
   3. Every target of env.Depends in source/figure should be referenced in a source/paper file.
   - NTS: explore whether it should be env.Depends targets anywhere or just source/figure
   Edit: crossed out per Track improvements to github actions #148 (comment)
   3. Allow users to ignore files from scons dag check DONE in Fix bugs in github actions #150
3. (Maybe:) some form of defensive guard against bringing issue subfolders into main
4. Include merge commit in issue summary comment by default as well.

[jmshapir]

@liaochris I don't think we should require (3). It seems too specific to our directory structure to build into actions testing. Thanks.

[zhizhongpu]

also,

• add this:

[liaochris]

@zhizhongpu I'm marking #148 (comment) as a duplicate given #148 (comment)

[liaochris]

/run-actions-all --post

[liaochris]

2. We check for whether extant files exist in scons. We don't check for whether the scons structure aligns with the directory. We could fix this by including a scons -n call in the github actions.

@zhizhongpu Here's something I'd like to get your thoughts on. Please let me know if you're aligned with the goal outlined above. Some thoughts below

1. We can't include a scons -n call in the github actions because actions can't access the datastore
2. We could ask the user to run scons -n but that requires a lot of manual work on our end.
3. We could shelve this point since most issues should go through scons runs, which will catch these any issues raised by a dry run.

Let me know what you think. I'm leaning towards 3 right now.

[zhizhongpu]

@zhizhongpu Here's something I'd like to get your thoughts on. Please let me know if you're aligned with the goal outlined above. Some thoughts below

thanks @liaochris. I also lean towards 3.

[zhizhongpu]

@jmshapir @liaochris I think tomorrow morning we can briefly touch base here to make sure we're directionally aligned.

[jmshapir]

@liaochris @zhizhongpu thanks both!

My notes from today referencing the numbering in #148 (comment):

1. Sounds fine to me.
2. Skip per Track improvements to github actions #148 (comment).
3. Can we implement this as a branch protection rule in the repository settings? If so that seems like an appealing direction.
4. Sounds fine to me.