Revert "Check semver of all workspace crates rather than an explicit …

[tnull]

…list"

This reverts commit a123cfa.

In this commit we made a bunch of changes to our SemVer CI that switched away from the default CI action, but also stopped testing particular features for sub-crates. Here we revert these changes as we still want to test explicit features individually and should just use the CI action.

[ldk-reviews-bot]

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.01%. Comparing base (f43803d) to head (6ced85e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4378   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.01%   86.01%           
=======================================
  Files         156      156           
  Lines      102857   102857           
  Branches   102857   102857           
=======================================
+ Hits        88474    88477    +3     
+ Misses      11876    11872    -4     
- Partials     2507     2508    +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	86.01% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[TheBlueMatt]

The previous crate list was missing a few crates (notably lightning-invoice, but its not our full crate list). If we're missing some features we should just add the missing features that we want to check explicitly.

[ldk-reviews-bot]

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

[TheBlueMatt]

If we want to improve the feature coverage beyond the current simple all/none, we should probably have some script that parses features and tests all the feature combos.

[tnull]

The previous crate list was missing a few crates (notably lightning-invoice, but its not our full crate list).

That's inaccurate. It checked the entire workspace with default features, and then also checked a list of crates with specific feature sub-sets. So the only thing that might have been missed is to test lightning-invoice without std (btw, any reason why that isn't on by default?).

If we're missing some features we should just add the missing features that we want to check explicitly.

That was exactly the previous approach before you changed it?

[TheBlueMatt]

That's inaccurate. It checked the entire workspace with default features, and then also checked a list of crates with specific feature sub-sets. So the only thing that might have been missed is to test lightning-invoice without std (btw, any reason why that isn't on by default?).

Hmm, it didn't fail on any of the PRs that changed the lightning-invoice API, so its clearly not, even if its supposed to. Mind looking into it, then?

[TheBlueMatt]

Specifically, it didn't fail on #4293 which is a pretty trivial case of "changed public method's signature without bumping version".