docs: add inputs table to README.md

[gmeligio]

This PR documents all inputs (and outputs that might appear in the future) automatically in the README.md using the action-docs npm package. This is helpful for users that want to read the reference of the inputs in case it's not covered by the examples.

I added an npm script to run it as npm run docs locally. It is possible to add it in a GitHub workflow, but I first need to figure out this repository's workflow permissions, which will make the PR longer. So, that could be done in the future.

---

Another unrelated fix to a test. There was a bug in the test.yml workflow.

grcov: error while loading shared libraries: libtcmalloc.so.4: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I fixed that by copying what the upstream grcov project does in https://github.com/mozilla/grcov/blob/743a0b9730702dae42e7198b5e2ff312d9773fae/.github/workflows/release.yml#L74

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 1c12c97 in 1 minute and 47 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 71 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/test.yml:145

• Draft comment:
  Good fix to install TCMalloc on Ubuntu. Consider using the built-in 'runner.os' check (e.g. if: runner.os == 'Linux') for clarity instead of matching 'matrix.runs-on'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While runner.os == 'Linux' would work here since Ubuntu is Linux, the current code is more specific and intentional about targeting Ubuntu specifically. The dependencies being installed (libunwind-dev and libgoogle-perftools-dev) are Ubuntu/Debian package names. The more specific check might actually be preferable since these package names are Ubuntu-specific. The suggestion might make the code more general for all Linux systems, which could be beneficial if the action needs to support other Linux distributions in the future. However, since these are Ubuntu-specific package names, being explicit about Ubuntu is more accurate and safer than assuming all Linux distributions will have these exact package names. The current code is intentionally Ubuntu-specific and more precise for this use case. The suggested change could potentially cause issues if other Linux distributions were added.

2. README.md:171

• Draft comment:
  There are duplicate action-docs markers for inputs and outputs. Verify if both opening and closing markers are needed, or if they should use distinct markers to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% The comment points out a real documentation structure issue that could cause confusion or problems with automated doc generation. The duplicate markers could interfere with documentation tooling. However, the comment is phrased as a verification request ("Verify if...") which violates our rules about not asking authors to verify things. The issue might be intentional - perhaps the empty outputs section is a placeholder for future use. Also, the comment's phrasing makes it a question rather than an actionable suggestion. While the structure might be intentional, having duplicate markers is likely to cause issues with doc generation tools. The core issue is valid even if the phrasing could be better. The comment should be rephrased to be more direct and actionable, but the underlying issue is worth fixing.

3. package.json:9

• Draft comment:
  The addition of the 'docs' script and the 'action-docs' dev dependency is clear and aligns with the documentation update. No issues found.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_rkVFxfgsOHfZhgz1

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}