Pros of setup-php

• Specifically designed for PHP environments, offering extensive PHP version and extension support
• Integrates seamlessly with GitHub Actions workflows
• Provides caching mechanisms for improved performance

Cons of setup-php

• Limited to PHP-specific setups, lacking versatility for other languages or environments
• Requires GitHub Actions infrastructure, not suitable for local testing

Code Comparison

setup-php:

- uses: shivammathur/setup-php@v2
  with:
    php-version: '8.1'
    extensions: mbstring, xml
    coverage: xdebug

act:

- run: |
    docker run --rm -v $PWD:/app -w /app php:8.1 \
    bash -c "apt-get update && apt-get install -y libxml2-dev \
    && docker-php-ext-install mbstring xml"

Key Differences

• setup-php is tailored for PHP environments in GitHub Actions
• act allows for local testing of GitHub Actions workflows
• setup-php offers more streamlined configuration for PHP-specific setups
• act provides flexibility to test various actions and environments locally

Use Cases

setup-php is ideal for:

• PHP projects using GitHub Actions
• Teams requiring specific PHP versions and extensions

act is suitable for:

• Local testing of GitHub Actions workflows
• Developers working with multiple languages and environments

Pros of runner

• Official GitHub Actions runner, ensuring full compatibility and support
• Supports all GitHub Actions features and integrations out-of-the-box
• Designed for production use in various environments (self-hosted, cloud, etc.)

Cons of runner

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to act
• Heavier resource usage, as it's a full-fledged runner implementation

Code comparison

act:

jobs:
  test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v2
      - run: npm test

runner:

jobs:
  test:
    runs-on: self-hosted
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v2
      - run: npm test

Key differences

• act simulates the GitHub Actions environment locally, while runner is the actual runtime used in GitHub's infrastructure
• act is primarily for local testing and development, whereas runner is for production deployments
• act has a simpler setup process but may not fully replicate all GitHub Actions features
• runner provides a more accurate representation of the GitHub Actions environment but requires more resources and configuration

Use cases

• Use act for quick local testing and development of GitHub Actions workflows
• Use runner for setting up self-hosted runners or when full GitHub Actions compatibility is required in production environments

Pros of Toolkit

• Provides official, well-maintained libraries for developing GitHub Actions
• Offers a comprehensive set of tools and utilities for common Actions tasks
• Integrates seamlessly with GitHub's ecosystem and best practices

Cons of Toolkit

• Requires more setup and coding knowledge to create custom Actions
• Limited to GitHub Actions platform, less flexible for local development

Code Comparison

Toolkit example:

const core = require('@actions/core');
const github = require('@actions/github');

try {
  const nameToGreet = core.getInput('who-to-greet');
  console.log(`Hello ${nameToGreet}!`);
} catch (error) {
  core.setFailed(error.message);
}

Act example:

- name: Run custom script
  run: |
    echo "Hello, World!"
    ./my-custom-script.sh

Summary

Toolkit is ideal for developers creating custom GitHub Actions, offering robust tools and integration. Act, on the other hand, focuses on local testing and simulation of GitHub Actions workflows, providing a simpler setup for running existing actions locally. While Toolkit requires more coding expertise, Act offers a more straightforward approach to testing workflows without deep GitHub Actions development knowledge.

Pros of runner-images

• Provides official, pre-built images used in GitHub-hosted runners
• Offers a wide range of software and tools pre-installed
• Ensures compatibility with GitHub Actions workflows

Cons of runner-images

• Large image size, requiring significant storage and download time
• Less flexibility for customization compared to local environments
• May include unnecessary tools for specific workflows

Code comparison

runner-images:

runs-on: ubuntu-latest

act:

- uses: nektos/act@v1
  with:
    runner: ubuntu-latest

Key differences

act:

• Allows running GitHub Actions locally
• Lightweight and faster to set up
• Provides more control over the execution environment

runner-images:

• Ensures exact replication of GitHub-hosted runners
• Supports a broader range of pre-installed software
• Maintained and updated by GitHub

Use cases

act is ideal for:

• Local development and testing of workflows
• CI/CD pipelines in resource-constrained environments
• Quick iterations and debugging

runner-images is better for:

• Production-grade GitHub Actions workflows
• Scenarios requiring specific software versions
• Ensuring consistency between local and GitHub-hosted runners