chore(deps): update actions/setup-go action to v6 (main)

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
actions/setup-go	action	major	v5 → v6

---

Release Notes

actions/setup-go (actions/setup-go)

v6

Compare Source

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

---

Important

Update actions/setup-go from v5 to v6 in validate-plugin.yml.

• Dependency Update:
  • Update actions/setup-go from v5 to v6 in validate-plugin.yml.

^{This description was created by for 4d0cf68. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to fb95cdd in 22 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/validate-plugin.yml:21

• Draft comment:
  The update to actions/setup-go@v6 looks correct. Verify that any new or changed parameters in v6 (if applicable) are handled appropriately, though 'go-version' remains unchanged.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 25% None

Workflow ID: wflow_NnnKOsiTiqHBuNbX

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[renovate]

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 4d0cf68 in 2 minutes and 15 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 2095 lines of code in 15 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. webfetch-guard/scripts/webfetch-guard.py:73

• Draft comment:
  In the block that handles allowing searches with the current year (starting at the check on line 73), the JSON output is printed but no explicit return is issued afterward. For consistency with the blocked-year branch (which uses an explicit return), consider adding a return immediately after printing the allowed output. This helps ensure a clean exit and prevents any unintended fall-through behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a style/consistency comment. The comment is technically correct that there's an inconsistency - one branch has an explicit return, the other doesn't. However, functionally, there's no difference since the function ends after line 88 anyway. There's no "fall-through behavior" to prevent since there's nothing to fall through to. The comment says "helps ensure a clean exit and prevents any unintended fall-through behavior" but this is misleading - the exit is already clean, and there's no code to fall through to. This seems like a minor style preference rather than a functional issue. The rules say not to comment on things that are obvious or unimportant, and this falls into that category. The inconsistency is real and could be considered a code quality issue. Having consistent patterns in similar code branches is generally good practice and makes the code easier to understand. The explicit return makes the intent clearer that this is an exit point. While consistency is nice, this is a very minor style issue with no functional impact. The function naturally ends after line 88, so there's no actual fall-through risk. The comment overstates the problem by suggesting there could be "unintended fall-through behavior" when there's literally no code after line 88. This is the kind of minor, unimportant comment that the rules say to avoid. This comment is about a minor style inconsistency with no functional impact. The claim about preventing "unintended fall-through behavior" is misleading since there's no code to fall through to. This falls under "obvious or unimportant" comments that should be removed.

2. markdown-validator/scripts/validate-markdown.sh:36

• Draft comment:
  The script expects a global markdownlint configuration file at "$HOME/.markdownlint-cli2.yaml". In certain CI or containerized environments the $HOME variable might differ or the file could be missing. Consider adding a note (or an environment variable override) in the documentation or script to handle such cases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

Workflow ID: wflow_2vo4yql6Be7tcaw9

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}