fix: add Vale linting [DM-4]

[darrickyong]

By submitting a PR to this repository, you agree to the terms within the Auth0 Code of Conduct. Please see the contributing guidelines for how to create and submit a high-quality PR for this repo.

Description

Describe the purpose of this PR along with any background information and the impacts of the proposed change. For the benefit of the community, please do not assume prior context.

Provide details that support your chosen implementation, including: breaking changes, alternatives considered, changes to the API, etc.

If the UI is being changed, please provide screenshots.

This PR adds vale as a Github Action and initial vale config.

References

Include any links supporting this change such as a:

• GitHub Issue/PR number addressed or fixed
• Auth0 Community post
• StackOverflow post
• Support forum thread
• Related pull requests/issues from other repos

If there are no references, simply delete this section.

Testing

Describe how this can be tested by reviewers. Be specific about anything not tested and reasons why. If this library has unit and/or integration testing, tests should be added for new functionality and existing tests should complete without errors.

Please include any manual steps for testing end-to-end or functionality not covered by unit/integration tests.

Also include details of the environment this PR was developed in (language/platform/browser version).

• This change adds test coverage for new/changed/fixed functionality

Checklist

• I have added documentation for new/changed functionality in this PR or in auth0.com/docs
• All active GitHub checks for tests, formatting, and security are passing
• The correct base branch is being used, if not the default branch

[mikemimik]

🤔 The output of the vale action is a little different than I expected. I thought that it would be similar to the terminal output you showed me @darrickyong when implementing this. My expectation was that the action would fail, not pass, and I'm curious why that is.

[nlucero]

I see the action is still passing (return code 0) even with this flag turned on. If you look at the execution logs there's these two lines by the end:

reviewdog: Reporting results for "vale"
reviewdog: No results found for "vale". 119 results found outside diff.

This is a bit suspicious. It could be that somehow the results are being filteres out of reviewdog's output?

[darrickyong]

Yes, going through more docs this morning and it appears that results by default are filtered in reviewdog by the PR's diff (i.e. added/modified files). I've now updated the filter to be filter_mode: nofilter and it looks like we are failing the action now with reviewdog outputting all the expected errors.