Merge ppa-dev-tools:fix-lp1992568-report-common-actions into ppa-dev-tools:main

Output is indeed better now.
And enough to have a quiet option indeed, thanks for thinking about that.

A few things I thought about you tackled in later commits already.

I consider myself not the best test reviewer, but you miss testing for dry-run.
On the general concept I wanted to ask for more tests on the actual creation but then found tests/test_ppa_group.py which covers that already. So you are good, but while looking there auto-checkers showed me:
  "singleton-comparison: Comparison 'args.debug == True' should be 'args.debug is True' if checking for the singleton value True, or 'args.debug' if testing for truthiness"

Maybe not for now (and it always depends which checkers style you want to follow) but a potential improvement later on?

Some minor improvement suggested inline.
But generally +1

@all - if one has deeper python test thoughts chime in.
@Bryce - maybe I should bring it up in the Pro/CI standups which are more python heavy.

I've pinged the other teams to consider having a look at the testing in general.

I left some nit/quality comments. I have no context to this project so excuses in advance :)

> Output is indeed better now.
> And enough to have a quiet option indeed, thanks for thinking about that.
>
> A few things I thought about you tackled in later commits already.
>
> I consider myself not the best test reviewer, but you miss testing for dry-
> run.

Thanks, good point, I've added it.

> On the general concept I wanted to ask for more tests on the actual creation
> but then found tests/test_ppa_group.py which covers that already. So you are
> good, but while looking there auto-checkers showed me:
> "singleton-comparison: Comparison 'args.debug == True' should be 'args.debug
> is True' if checking for the singleton value True, or 'args.debug' if testing
> for truthiness"
>
> Maybe not for now (and it always depends which checkers style you want to
> follow) but a potential improvement later on?

Interesting, what are you running for that auto-checker?
I'd like to see if they have a more detailed justification for the case before deciding what to do.
Offhand I prefer the explicitness of '==' over just a truthiness test, but open to better ideas.

> Some minor improvement suggested inline.
> But generally +1
>
> @all - if one has deeper python test thoughts chime in.
> @Bryce - maybe I should bring it up in the Pro/CI standups which are more
> python heavy.

Thanks for the feedback, Alberto and Christian!

I've added stronger checking for the --architectures '' case, and the testcase for --dry-run mentioned above. For the other feedback I've left inline comments.

I'll leave the checker style adjustments to be handled separately once I've had a chance to study it; that change would affect all tests so should be a separate branch anyway.

To git+ssh://git.launchpad.net/ppa-dev-tools
   08102ce..222405e main -> main