Add test_arg input and populate to test_args in test()

[sschlenkrich]

This PR aims at increasing flexibility for running Julia tests. The string value of the new test_arg input is passed to test and can be accessed in Julia via the ARGS variable.

Use cases are, for example, distinuishing runs of fast and slow tests.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (d0c4f09) to head (ed29cc7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #73   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            1         1           
  Lines            2         2           
=========================================
  Hits             2         2           

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[adamslc]

Is there anything blocking the PR? I would also find the functionality helpful.

I see the in #39 there was a concern about adding too many additional keyword args, but this seems like a very basic piece of functionality.

[willow-ahrens]

I would also find this functionality useful, thanks for filing the PR!

[sschlenkrich]

I rebased my changes on the current main branch. Hopefully, this gives another impuls for a review of this PR.

[mhauru]

I would very much like to see this merged, test_args is a standard part of how Pkg.test operates, and would be great to have the Action support it.

Could we get this to support multiple test_ags, since Pkg.test supports that too? You could leverage Julia's own arg parsing by, in the action.yml, passing inputs as julia test.harness.jl {{ inputs.test_args }}, and then calling Kwargs.kwargs with test_args=ARGS. I think using ARGS would be very natural here, because what Pkg.test does is it makes the test_args available to runtests.jl as ARGS. I'm happy to make a PR into this PR too if that's helpful.

[sschlenkrich]

Thanks @mhauru for your comment. Yes, I am totally fine if you add/amend to my PR.

To be honest, I am a little bit reluctant to put to much effort in this PR by myself. This PR is open for quite a while. But the maintainers did not find the time for a review.

[IanButterworth]

Sorry your PR was opened in a period of low maintenance and it fell down in attention. Please feel free to bump when the PR is considered ready again for review/merge.

[sschlenkrich]

Thanks @IanButterworth for your comment! I rebased my proposed changes on the latest main branch. From my perspective this PR is ready for review. Could you have a look?

I would suggest to first integrate this PR and then @mhauru could add support for multiple arguments.

[sschlenkrich]

Documentation and example is a fair point. I just added a paragraph to the readme. @IanButterworth, could you have a look if this works for you?

[IanButterworth]

@mhauru please go ahead and PR the multiple args work and we can make a release after that