Upgrade GitHub Actions to latest versions

[Copilot]

• Updated to latest versions of Actions (this includes mrkkrp/ormolu-action was renamed to haskell-actions/run-ormolu@v17)
• Uses a native concurrency group to cancel in-progress runs when a new one is queues (instead of the non-native styfle/cancel-workflow-action action)
• Uses haskell-actions/setup instead of the manual ghcup calls as they were workarounds that are not needed anymore
• Reformats code to match with the latest ormolu version
• Pins macos-latest to macos-13, as macos-latest is now an ARM image and our current Haskell version is not compatible (to be solved in Upgrade GHC to 9.2.8 #50)

[cprecioso]

@copilot remove the cancel-workflow-action action in favor of a concurrency group

[Copilot]

@copilot remove the cancel-workflow-action action in favor of a concurrency group

Done! I've removed the cancel-workflow-action and replaced it with a native GitHub Actions concurrency group. This provides the same functionality but uses built-in features that are more efficient and reliable. The concurrency group automatically cancels redundant workflow runs based on the workflow name and git ref. (93643ae)

[cprecioso]

@copilot remove manual ghc installation and uncomment the action to install haskell (last version is haskell-actions/setup@v2

[Copilot]

@copilot remove manual ghc installation and uncomment the action to install haskell (last version is haskell-actions/setup@v2

Done! I've removed the manual GHC installation steps and uncommented the haskell-actions/setup action, updating it to use the latest v2 version. The workflow now uses the official Haskell setup action instead of manual ghcup installation, which should be more reliable and maintainable. (91c6897)

[Martinsos]

what the heck

[cprecioso]

what the heck

we're in 2025, AI can update your dependencies now 😂

[Martinsos]

what the heck

we're in 2025, AI can update your dependencies now 😂

Maybe it can, but that doesn't mean it should :D.

Ok so this is a real PR. Can you give me some background on it? How much was done by AI, how much by you? How confident are you in this PR? Do you understand every change that was done in it, and have you thought yourself through them? Have you thought through possible other solutions or what else could be done here?
I guess these are just typical questions when a PR heavily using AI is made - I wouldn't ask them on normal PR because it is usually clear from the code/comments that author though through it, but here the problem is I have no idea how much thought or attention you put into it, and I don't trust AI to pull that off properly on its own.

[Martinsos]

Rejecting till I get assurance that HI (human intelligence) owns this PR.

[cprecioso]

@Martinsos I wouldn't put up for review a PR that didn't pass the same muster as my own. This is just me testing tools out, but the PR is real and needed, as the Actions won't run anymore because the versions are so outdated (see the output here).

As you can see if you scroll up, I've been giving the AI specific instructions for the kind of changes I want to see get done, plus you can also see that I've added commits made by myself in this PR, and the PR description has been edited by me to give a clear overview of the changes made. Also, I've tagged Filip as a reviewer on this PR so I made sure that one more pair of eyes are on this.

Yep, I've reviewed, and understand all the changes done, as I've asked for them specifically and in the end even changed some things to make it as I would have done. The context on this is that I'm trying out this automatic Copilot PRs, and thought that it could make a decent starting point for upgrading the Haskell toolchain at Wasp (wasp-lang/wasp#2950), taking out the manual work of bumping version numbers and testing dependencies. When I showed that to Filip, he asked me if it could also do the same for this library here, and I tried it too (#50), but the actions are outdated so the CI was not running.

For those two other PRs, I wouldn't think to send them as I am not expert enough in Haskell to understand all the changes. I provided them to a colleague with a clear indication that this is AI-generated, and with the intention of providing a starting point. But this specific PR here does touch things I am familiar with and I specifically asked for the kinds of changes I wanted to see.