move create-clusters workflow from test-gh-actions

[tommartensen]

Moving the create-clusters workflow from test-gh-actions: https://github.com/stackrox/test-gh-actions/blob/main/.github/workflows/create-clusters.yml.

In contrast to #16, this PR does add the workflow as is and does not attempt to rewrite it into an action.
Both are reusable by other workflows, example: https://github.com/stackrox/test-gh-actions/pull/114/files .

Example build: https://github.com/stackrox/test-gh-actions/actions/runs/5820630385

[vikin91]

There is a danger of clashing names: https://github.com/stackrox/actions/tree/main/infra/create-cluster

Are you planning to use #16 for this later?

[tommartensen]

Are you planning to use #16 for this later?

No, rewriting the workflow into an action that references other actions through scripts should not be desirable because:

• actions should be small, this workflow is quite complex
• some parts of it (like Slack notifications) would need to be rewritten from using a shared action to bash

[tommartensen]

I am not 100% convinced with hardcoding the reference for the action.
Here is what did not work:

• checking out the repository and using a local action, which would need to pass the workflow ref from the calling workflow to here. For unknown reasons the action behaves differently when called locally or as shell script vs as a remote action, and the gh_log output becomes part of the block output here, which causes jq and the loop to fail.
• using an input (or other) variable in the path, e.g. stackrox/actions/release/wait-for-image@${{ inputs.workflow-ref }}

The other actions in this workflow are not affected by the output bug.
If we remove the gh_log output from the block wait-for-image, we could use the checkout and local action approach (with passing the workflow ref from the calling workflow).

(there is no context that can provide the ref of the called workflow at the moment, hence the suggestion to have an explicit input: actions/toolkit#1264)

[tommartensen]

The other actions in this workflow are not affected by the output bug.
If we remove the gh_log output from the block wait-for-image, we could use the checkout and local action approach (with passing the workflow ref from the calling workflow).

fixed in #18

[tommartensen]

@vikin91 and I agreed offline to pass the workflow-ref to checkout the actions repo and run a local action.

[vikin91]

Only a coarse review, but the moving looks good! Now we have one place to add improvements (I can spot some of them already).

FYI: @JoukoVirtanen