Runner tool cache is used for pre-installed *and* actively installed tools
Code of Conduct
- [X] I have read and agree to the GitHub Docs project's Code of Conduct
What article on docs.github.com is affected?
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/contexts#runner-context
Specifically, this reusable: https://github.com/github/docs/blob/main/data/reusables/actions/runner-tool-cache-description.md
What part(s) of the article would you like to see updated?
The documentation for runner.tool_cache says that it's used for "preinstalled tools". This is true, but not complete: some actions, including official GitHub actions like actions/setup-python, will install new tools in that directory as well.
I'd like the documentation to better reflect how this directory is intended to be used: should it only be for genuinely preinstalled tools (in which case other GitHub repositories aren't in keeping with this intent), only for GitHub provided tools (so it's appropriate for setup-python to install there, but not, say cygwin/cygwin-install-action), or is it an appropriate place for any tooling to install itself?
I suspect it's not appropriate to significantly expand the text in the reusable itself, as that's short to fit into a small table cell. I do think it would be useful to have the intent of this directory documented somewhere, however; I wasn't able to find out how GitHub intends the directory to be used either in docs.github.com or from digging around some relevant-looking repositories. This sort of information about expected behaviour and best practices is really useful for folk working on published custom actions.
Additional information
No response
Thanks for opening this issue. A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.
@me-and Thanks so much for opening an issue! I'll triage this for the team to take a look :eyes:
Thanks for opening an issue! We've triaged this issue for technical review by a subject matter expert :eyes:
This is a gentle bump for the docs team that this issue is waiting for technical review.