Exclude assemblies from lint-DITA

[aneta-petrova]

What changes are you introducing?

Modifying the DITA part of the Vale check to run only on modules and not on assemblies.

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

While each assembly and module must include a content type definition to be evaluated by asciidoctor-dita-vale (https://github.com/jhradilek/asciidoctor-dita-vale/blob/af6c00940de1ce99994ddd1631aa18d35a7ff0a3/README.md?plain=1#L130), assemblies in Foreman docs can be ignored because they serve as simple containers of includes. For the purposes of Red Hat's migration to DITA downstream, checking the modules in guides/common/modules is enough.

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

Third time's the charm, after #4865 and #4879 These two PRs explored how to use the IGNORE content type to exclude assemblies from the Vale checks. However, if Vale is not supposed to check assemblies, we can also just drop it from the GH workflow entirely.

Contributor checklists

• I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
• I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

• Foreman 3.19/Katello 4.21
• Foreman 3.18/Katello 4.20 (Satellite 6.19)
• Foreman 3.17/Katello 4.19
• Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18; orcharhino 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8)
• Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
• Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4; orcharhino 7.5)
• Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
• Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only; orcharhino 7.3)
• We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.12.

[github-actions]

The PR preview for e6b8a75 is available at theforeman-foreman-documentation-preview-pr-4893.surge.sh

No diff compared to the current base

show diff

[Lennonka]

The PR looks correct per the intended goal.

Will removing the content type attribute definitions ensure that our "include containers" assemblies do not appear in Jaromir's reports downstream?

[Lennonka]

Perhaps we should also update skills that create assemblies so that they don't add the content type attribute?

[maximiliankolb]

Thanks Anet, LGTM.

I checked .github/workflows/vale.yml and reproduced the remaining changes locally via fd -t f "assembly_" | xargs sed --in-place "/:_mod-docs-content-type: ASSEMBLY/,+1d".

[aneta-petrova]

Rebased to pull in the changes merged with #4887 and resolve the conflict (the other PR deletes an assembly).

[aneta-petrova]

Considering that the ASSEMBLY content type is not needed downstream, and it's not relevant for upstream either, I've decided not to cherry-pick. The only consequence should be that PRs on branches 3.16-3.19 will keep reporting Vale errors for assemblies but I don't think it's a big deal because we've been quite okay with ignoring the same errors up until now :)