support ruff mode argument

[yosmoc]

Related: #11
This PR allows Users to specify the mode of ruff to be 'check' or 'format' using the mode input.

[brucearctor]

@yosmoc -- thanks! Looking at this now.

A question: mode means lots of things in different contexts. Is there an alternate, more narrowly descriptive word that would be possible to use? Mode might be acceptable, but wanting to spend a moment to consider alternatives. Please advise thoughts.

[yosmoc]

@yosmoc -- thanks! Looking at this now.

A question: mode means lots of things in different contexts. Is there an alternate, more narrowly descriptive word that would be possible to use? Mode might be acceptable, but wanting to spend a moment to consider alternatives. Please advise thoughts.

Thanks. How about these alternatives?

• check_or_format: check or format
• linter_or_formatter: linter or formatter
• subcommand: check or format

[brucearctor]

if the default is check, why would we include that in the example? Wouldn't users keep it blank since to check it wouldn't need to be specified?

[brucearctor]

@yosmoc -- looking a bit closer: is there a reason the existing args doesn't suffice? I think you could place 'check' in that if desiring to check? If that indeed works, maybe we do not need an additional parameter, and could just update the docs?

[yosmoc]

@yosmoc -- looking a bit closer: is there a reason the existing args doesn't suffice? I think you could place 'check' in that if desiring to check? If that indeed works, maybe we do not need an additional parameter, and could just update the docs?

@brucearctor Sure! If we provide an example of ruff format in the documentation, that should be sufficient. A user normally runs ruff format with the --check option in ci, I believed it would be beneficial if the action automatically adds the --check option for the first time. (You also mentioned in here. #11 (comment) )

[yosmoc]

@brucearctor I reverted my original commit and updated the README file. Would you please check it again?

[brucearctor]

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/formatter/#conflicting-lint-rules

Are you sure people would want to use format --check [ see docs from link/screenshot ] ... I imagine generally want to use either format or check [ or even format followed by check ]? Otherwise -- and I haven't tested -- is the failure message sufficiently easy to debug?

I'm fine with this, if you think correct, but please think through. If wanting format --check, maybe we link to the doc or make the failure code clear to help people with potential debugging? Thoughts?

[brucearctor]

Ah ... maybe I missed the development. ruff formatter is different than linter! So, ruff format --check, is checking that the file is formatted. In this case, formatter is roughly a replacement for black? If that's correct, then indeed this makes sense.

[brucearctor]

I believe was confusing 'format' with 'fix' option.

[yosmoc]

Yes, Ruff formatter is replacement for black. The Ruff Formatter - Ruff

[brucearctor]

would you put a little not in the docs as part of your PR about that? I imagine - since I got confused others might as well? Otherwise, we're great to go.