Add GitHub Enterprise support

[ZPascal]

Hi @ad-m,

the corresponding draft PR is a follow-up of the last PR to include the GTE support inside the action. Could you please modify the settings of the repository to make it possible to execute the check also from a fork?

To-do:

• Check the GitHub API URL variable from the GitHub context inside the GTE instance.

[ad-m]

Could you please modify the settings of the repository to make it possible to execute the check also from a fork?

See

github-push-action/.github/workflows/build.yml

Line 3 in 7257a3a

on: [push]

. Feel free to provide PR for that.

[ZPascal]

Hi @ad-m, I've checked on the GTE instance, if it's possible to use the API URL from the GitHub context. It's definitely the corresponding URL of the API Endpoint of the GitHub Enterprise system.

[ad-m]

@ZPascal could you rebase to include changes made in #109 to verify it?

[ZPascal]

@ad-m Done. It doesn't seem to work yet. I will look at it in detail later.

[ZPascal]

Hi @ad-m, I've implemented the general GTE support and tested it here. I also modified the GitHub Action to check the syntax inside the PR validation itself. I also tried to execute the real push action inside the PR, but that is not possible (The tokens got not the corresponding access rights to both repositories [forked and original]).

[ad-m]

I wonder if instead of introducing a new parameter to the action (intended purely for development purposes), it is not enough to write in the pull request template that you should look at the builds on the "push" event on the forking repository, instead of the "pull request" event on the current repository. GitHub-hosted forks should also have GitHub Actions running, so everything audible, so I don't see any reason not to. What do you think about this simplification?

[ZPascal]

Hi @ad-m,

sounds validate. I'll modify the PR.

[ZPascal]

Hi @ad-m, could we merge the PR?

[ad-m]

LGTM