CI: Update GitHub Actions workflow

[panagiotisbellias]

Fixes #17

Changes

• Use modern GitHub Actions

  • actions/checkout → v4
  • actions/setup-python → v5
  • actions/setup-java → v4

• Remove deprecated syntax

  • Replaced ::set-output with GITHUB_OUTPUT

• Safe artifact naming

  • Version names sanitized (slashes replaced with dashes)
  • Artifact names now include: build identifier + safe version + commit SHA

• Keep optional caching commented out

  • Cache step left in place but disabled (SCons rebuild issue noted)

Why

• Keeps workflow compatible with the latest GitHub Actions
• Prevents build failures from unsafe characters in artifact names
• Ensures reproducible and uniquely identifiable artifacts

Next Steps

• Verify artifacts in PR run (names and contents)
• Confirm that windows-debug and windows-release jobs pass

[RedMser]

Looks good! There's still this warning which you might be able to tackle:

The `python-version` input is not set.  The version of Python currently in `PATH` will be used.

Furthermore (I am very unfamiliar with CI so advice is appreciated), is it possible to take out the SHA from the artifact name to make it easier to read? Or would subsequent runs of the CI create conflicts, if the old and new artifacts share the same name?

Thanks a lot :)

[panagiotisbellias]

Thanks for the review! 🙏

• I’ve updated the workflow to set python-version: '3.x' so the warning is gone.
  • We might later decide to pin to a specific version (e.g., 3.11) if the project documentation or dependencies require it — currently no docs specify that.
• About the artifact naming:
  • Keeping the SHA ensures uniqueness across runs (so older artifacts aren’t overwritten).
  • Dropping the SHA makes names cleaner but means reruns will overwrite previous artifacts.
  • A middle-ground option is to keep the SHA only for master builds (for traceability) and drop it for PR builds (for readability).

Let me know which approach we should take, and I can adjust the workflow accordingly.

[RedMser]

Thanks a bunch for the update and the insights.

Let me know which approach we should take, and I can adjust the workflow accordingly.

I suppose we keep it as-is for now, so that all artifacts are retrievable. Seems like a good idea!

[RedMser]

Thanks for the PR @panagiotisbellias 🚀