ci: revert the switch to a reusable workflow

[jahn-junior]

• Have you updated CHANGELOG.md with relevant non-documentation file changes?
  Have you updated the documentation for this change?

---

Reverts change from 4387b29

The automatic-docs-check file was never meant to be reusable from the Starter Pack. Making the file reusable introduces an unnecessary layer between a documentation project and the upstream workflow.

To run these checks, instead reference the equivalent workflow in the canonical/documentation-workflows repository.

jobs:
  documentation-checks:
    uses: canonical/documentation-workflows/.github/workflows/documentation-checks.yaml@main
    with:
      [...]

I opted to leave the other workflows reusable, as these have not yet been upstreamed and would otherwise only be usable by duplicating the files in your docs project. However, it should be noted that we're currently planning to upstream these workflows later this cycle.

This is technically a breaking change, but I already opened a PR against the only affected repo.

[akcano]

Somewhat tangentially to what @medubelko said, can we have a line somewhere on using this properly, e.g. with the python_version customized? E.g. based on the incident that caused this reversal in the first place.

[jahn-junior]

@akcano

Somewhat tangentially to what @medubelko said, can we have a line somewhere on using this properly, e.g. with the python_version customized? E.g. based on the incident that caused this reversal in the first place.

I added a proper reference for the inputs, modeled after how ruff does it. I probably went a bit too far for the scope of this PR, but it's a worthwhile improvement.

129d6a4

[medubelko]

@jahn-junior It looks like your branch has the changes from #508, but the Markdown linter is still reading inside .sphinx/. After you look into that, we can marge.

[jahn-junior]

@medubelko

@jahn-junior It looks like your branch has the changes from #508, but the Markdown linter is still reading inside .sphinx/. After you look into that, we can marge.

It looks like dev didn't get this line from #508. Merge issue maybe?

111b87c

Fixed now!

[medubelko]

It looks like dev didn't get this line from #508. Merge issue maybe?

I was wrong. I thought #508 was originally into dev, not main. To avoid even further complications with the history, I think we should cut the commit.

[jahn-junior]

@medubelko Ah, I see. I figured it was a mistake from conflict resolution. Reset the commit.

[medubelko]

@jahn-junior LGTM, feel free to merge when ready.