ci: complain about catch-alls documenting alarm (sub) codes

[gavanderhoorn]

This won't mark the job as failed, but it will result in annotations being added to a PR or CI run.

Example:

---

Edit: and on a PR we'd get:

But only the first 10 warnings.

[gavanderhoorn]

Context: #279 (specifically: #279 (comment)).

@ted-miller: turns out I'd already added the possibility to emit warnings about catch-all ranges in the documentation, we just hadn't enabled it during the CI run.

This enables it and slightly improves the warning text to also include the specific alarm (sub) code which is covered by a catch-all.

Note: unfortunately we have quite a few alarms documented by catch-alls, and the run summary only shows up to 10.

[gavanderhoorn]

Friendly ping @ted-miller

[ted-miller]

unfortunately we have quite a few alarms documented by catch-alls, and the run summary only shows up to 10.

Are you sure we want this then? If there are other warnings, would they get smothered by this message?

[gavanderhoorn]

Are you sure we want this then? If there are other warnings, would they get smothered by this message?

so, yes, I would want this, but perhaps the script that checks these things should be extended to allow for ignoring certain alarm ranges/IDs.

[ted-miller]

Ok. It's fine with me then.

but perhaps the script that checks these things should be extended to allow for ignoring certain alarm ranges/IDs

Not sure why you switched back to a Draft PR. Are you making such a change?

[gavanderhoorn]

Are you making such a change?

yeah, I'll add it.