During the prototyping phase of crs-actions, being able to rely on the excellent foundations laid out by reviewdog was very helpful and a time saver.
However, crs really only depends on a fairly small fraction of what reviewdog offers, and I envision that enforcing the presence of reviewing in the workflow dependencies might not be the best fit for at least some targeted workflows and users.
I would like to explore using the GitHub API directly to cover some of the functionality used by crs (such as create annotations and job checks) and try to assess how much effort and maintenance that represents, as initial scoping work.
During the prototyping phase of crs-actions, being able to rely on the excellent foundations laid out by reviewdog was very helpful and a time saver.
However, crs really only depends on a fairly small fraction of what reviewdog offers, and I envision that enforcing the presence of reviewing in the workflow dependencies might not be the best fit for at least some targeted workflows and users.
I would like to explore using the GitHub API directly to cover some of the functionality used by crs (such as create annotations and job checks) and try to assess how much effort and maintenance that represents, as initial scoping work.