fix boolean handling

[theoephraim]

fixes 2 issues, although you may want to adjust how its done...

1 - optional booleans were throwing an error when empty. Not sure if you want to return undefined, or just default to false if empty.

2 - boolean defaults were causing issues when unquoted in the yaml file

[ncalteen]

Copying my comment from the issue thread:

FYI the GitHub YAML schema expects a string value. This is also documented in the action syntax documentation.

Additionally, I will need to double check what @actions/core is returning for optional, undefined boolean inputs. Bear with me and I will check on this first thing tomorrow!

[theoephraim]

Cool - no rush. I was just digging around and figured I may as well open a PR :) As for the string default - does that mean GitHub will itself throw an error if you pass in a Boolean? If so, this tool could also check that the action.yaml is following the spec and throw. Otherwise if GitHub lets it through, we should probably also handle it, even if not officially part of the spec.

[ncalteen]

To be extra pedantic, I ran the following tests to confirm behavior:

Required	Default Value Type	Input Value Type	Result
true	string	None	OK
true	None	string	OK
true	bool	None	OK
true	None	bool	OK
false	string	None	OK
false	None	string	OK
false	bool	None	OK
false	None	bool	OK
false	None	None	Input does not meet YAML 1.2 "Core Schema" specification

So it looks like the schema itself is not really enforced. The only one that should error out is an optional input with no value. In that case, I believe the scenario you pointed out in issue 1 should still throw a Input does not meet YAML 1.2 "Core Schema" specification error to remain consistent with the default @actions/core functionality, but issue 2 is valid and needs to be resolved.

[ncalteen]

Can you also bump the version in package.json to 2.5.1? That way when this PR is merged, it will release a new version to npm.

[theoephraim]

re: throwing an error - If the item is marked as optional, it seems unexpected to throw an error when empty. It's effectively saying there is no such thing as an optional boolean. Either coercing to false or leaving it empty/undefined seem reasonable to me, but throwing an error doesn't feel quite right. If I want to have an optional boolean input, I would now have to wrap getting the value in a try/catch.

re: versioning - I can bump this one, but I'd strongly recommend setting up some automation with either https://github.com/changesets/changesets or https://www.npmjs.com/package/release-it.
edit - I see you do have some automation here, but still it's nice to not update the version numbers manually. Changesets has been really nice to work with...

[ncalteen]

re: throwing an error - If the item is marked as optional, it seems unexpected to throw an error when empty. It's effectively saying there is no such thing as an optional boolean. Either coercing to false or leaving it empty/undefined seem reasonable to me, but throwing an error doesn't feel quite right.

I don't disagree, but that would be a change that needs to happen in the @actions/toolkit side first, since the goal of this project is to replicate the same behavior.

[theoephraim]

ah of course - that makes sense. Forgot for a sec what this tool was actually doing 😅

Will make changes and should be ready to go

[ncalteen]

LGTM 🎉 Thanks for the support!