Add workflow for format checking of markdown files; fix minor formatting errors

[BenjaminRodenberg]

I found some formatting errors and fixed them. Additionally, I added a markdown linter that we use in https://github.com/precice/tutorials for checking our markdown files. Please note that I deactivated many checks, because I did not want introduce a diff that is too large.

[lwasser]

hi @BenjaminRodenberg 👋 welcome to pyOpenSci. I'm curious what your goal is with this PR. This is a software review repository so we don't necessarily want to modify the markdown but it is nice to have those types of fixes on our templates. A. bit more information would be wonderful here.

For instance i think this will only run on our .github directory which is good looking at the action. but have you tried to run the linter locally on these files is that what this pr represents?

many thanks for the pr!

[BenjaminRodenberg]

By removing these lines, you can activate additional checks.

[BenjaminRodenberg]

Hi @lwasser ! I just stumbled over the formatting errors in the templates, so I fixed them. The main goal with the workflow is to avoid these kind of formatting errors and inconsistencies in the future. We are using this workflow in one of our repositories and it's quite helpful for ourselves - but also for contributors.

On your question about running things locally: There are two possibilities. 1) I used act to run this workflow locally. 2) In another repository we use pre-commit hooks to do some formatting checks, but I don't know how to set them up for this workflow.

If I run act without ignoring some formatting rules (MD007 etc.) then there are just too many formatting problems and I would have to change a very large part of the templates. I thought this might be a bit too much of a change for the first PR. But you can re-activate the formatting rules later and, see whether you like the suggestions of the linter and apply the modifications step by step (We also went through this process with all our markdown files at some point in time and decided that we don't like the suggested formatting of MD013 and MD033).

[lwasser]

ok wonderful - thank you so so much for this @BenjaminRodenberg !! i will have a closer look at it tomorrow. I just approved the CI build so we can look at how it runs here.

I'm so appreciative of this contribution. May I ask how you found us? THANK YOU. i will also add you as a contributor to our organization!

[BenjaminRodenberg]

Thank you :) I'm glad, if my contribution helps!

May I ask how you found us?

Actually over the comment under this post on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lorenabarba_better-incentives-are-needed-to-reward-academic-activity-7036783075208364032-iHSk mentioning pyopensci.

[lwasser]

interesting thread. thank you for sharing that! i hope people don't perceive our review process as scary or having a high bar to get in for a review :) we do welcome people who intend to their maintain packages and also hope to help them improve their packages through our review and to get credit via the partnership with joss :) if you do have any questions feel free to ping us about the process.

in the meantime - let's get these changes merged - i'm reviewing it all closely now.

[lwasser]

the failure is the other linter i tried to add - it's supposed to check links and one is failing but it's a 403 so that is fine. i may need to add a config file.

[lwasser]

this looks great - let's merge it!

[lwasser]

@all-contributors please add @BenjaminRodenberg for code, review

[allcontributors]

@lwasser

I've put up a pull request to add @BenjaminRodenberg! 🎉

[lwasser]

many thanks for this @BenjaminRodenberg and please do get in touch with us / me if you have any questions about our review process!!