Simen A. W. Olsen

Hello 👋 Thanks for doing this, @fitz-vivodyne! I am wondering what you think of keep using the `refresh` argument, and change the behavior of it to use this? For most...

AFAIK, this behaviour is from [@actions/tool-cache](https://github.com/actions/toolkit/tree/main/packages/tool-cache). Not sure how we can change any of this without moving away from that package, which I don't think we want?

@alfred-stokespace You could probably add a job/step that does this in your own workflow as a fix _for now_. Might be worth opening an issue on `@actions/tool-cache` if we evaluate...

Having thought about it for a minute, should we parse to string here?

> Another option would be to revert #813 , then complete [pulumi/pulumi#12641](https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/12641) before re-instating #813. I'm tempted by this direction, since I've already made a few bad assumptions while tracing...

So, here's another alternative. #913 removes validation, getting us back to how we did it before #813. Then we can put this PR on hold until https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/12641 is fixed.

As there is no way to get the Automation API to run `pulumi preview --refresh`, we cannot do it with Automation API (which is why we did the weird `pulumi...

Hello 👋 I will have a look into this very soon! 🚀

Hello @Moon1706! Thank you for opening this PR. Recently, #810 was opened. From what I can understand, this is the same as what you're trying to add here. Can you...

Thank you for this contribution! Considering this is an API-only feature, maybe it's worth considering a way to expose the whole API? E.g. that we provide a function that returns...