Actually use lookback in usage example

[LilithHafner]

As far as I can tell, as written, the example usage asks the user for a lookback number but doesn't pass it to the actual workflow. Is that the case? And if so, would this fix it?

[fingolfin]

No this is not correct. The passed lookback value is used by TagBot. E.g. I successfully used it to pass a lookback of 450 days in this log.

Here is a run for the https://github.com/JuliaCollections/AbstractTrees.jl repository with a default lookback of 3, which failed to find several missing releases

And here I've run it again with a lookback of 900 to find the two missing releases -- unfortunately it seems to struggle with this (been running for two hours now) but I think it is enough to demonstrate that the lookback is passed on...

All in all I have no doubts that the lookback input does have an effect.

As to why it works, my guess is that this is because the get_input helper function in TagBot parses its inputs from the file pointed to by GITHUB_EVENT_PATH. At least I interpret https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-when-your-workflow-runs/events-that-trigger-workflows#providing-inputs as perhaps saying that the workflow dispatch inputs are mirrored that. But (as usual) the GitHub docs are too vague to know without trial and error. Alas, since it works demonstrably, I personally won't spend further time on researching this.

[LilithHafner]

Hm, interesting that both the logs you shared have the line lookback: 3 in them. But I guess if it works it works 🤷