Feature/local_improvements_2

[worksofliam]

Changes

Features

• New optional feature to automatically create a branch library when switching/creating a branch
  • Or, if the library already exists when they check out to branch, it will ask if they want to create a filter for it if they do not have one.
• Variables now appear in actions.json, making it easier to understand the content

Internal changes

Variable expansion was broken. If I had an .env like this before, it would not expand when building the library list. This is now resolved.

CURLIB=&BRANCHLIB

Secondly, we had some type mis-matches for variables. In runAction we were using Map<string, string>, but the RemoteCommand interface is using Record<string, string> (the same as {[key: string]: string})). This was a pain and because changing RemoteCommand risks breaking a lot of APIs (including external extensions using our API) I felt that a reasonable idea to convert Variables to be a Record<string, string>. Sorry @sebjulliand !! But, it does mean variable expansion of variables works in almost every scenario now.

Checklist

• have tested my change
• updated relevant documentation
• Remove any/all console.logs I added
• eslint is not complaining
• have added myself to the contributors' list in CONTRIBUTING.md
• for feature PRs: PR only includes one feature enhancement.

[Wright4i]

@worksofliam see 3 pending code comments. Thanks!

[worksofliam]

@Wright4i I fixed two of the three issues you raised - thanks for a great review.

Sadly, we need #1741 to be merged into this branch for the fixes to take affect right now. I will re-request a review when that is done.

[Wright4i]

Fixes look good. Approved

[worksofliam]

@Wright4i Requesting your review again! I fixed the issue you described above: we can now detect when a repo is initialized and handle those branch changes too!

Please try again and let me know what you think.

[Wright4i]

LGTM! Fix worked and prompted to create a library on a branch switch after creating a new git repo.

[worksofliam]

@Wright4i Any chance I can bother you to retest this again after a fairly large merge? The same tests as before would be fab. Thank you.

[Wright4i]

@worksofliam No issues with my tests after the merge & typo fix. Code looks solid. Good to go 👍