Refactor test organization and update CI actions

[jassielof]

Mostly organization changes.

• Updated the CI checkout version and names
• Moved unit tests as integration tests to a in/valid structure, I had to do slight changes to the tests, such as changing the use of new() method as it's not public. As for the rest of smoke/dump tests I left them under dumps.rs, I didn't really know what to do with them, maybe under smoke.rs?
  • Fixed Both parse_incorrect_result and parse_incorrect_types tests fail on Windows #95
• Fixed Clippy warnings
• Updated the Types module to the new naming convention.

Some other things I wanted to update were:

• Using the README as the library doc comment

And some other suggestion was a site that has a lot of BibTeX fixtures, which might be useful: https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/bibliographies.html

Also, some of his projects might be useful if not referenced yet, for example bibclean or bibcheck or bibparse, etc. Recent versions are GPL 2.0, some older ones are public domain, but if only used as reference work for study I don't think they would affect the licensing of the crate.

Some are C though others are PostScript I think, which doesn’t help.

[Drodt]

Looks good, thank you! Can you fix the merge conflict?

[jassielof]

Noooo haha will do sob

[jassielof]

@Drodt Just to confirm, only valid tests were modified, right? specially test_editor_types and test_synthesized_entry with more Person struct fields (set to None)

[jassielof]

Also, do you mind if I add a reference to the latest BibLaTeX/Biber version as reference? As explained in #98. Not sure if that would be fine just in the README.

[laurmaedje]

I think the action step names could be dropped. They are mostly noise imo as the action names are typically fairly self explanatory. It's the standard way to not have them across our open source repos.

[jassielof]

oh, i added them bc it looks usually prettier on the workflow preview xd, but ok ill drop them sory

[jassielof]

Keeping the rust-cache step is fine I assume?

[jassielof]

Also, do you mind if I add a reference to the latest BibLaTeX/Biber version as reference? As explained in #98. Not sure if that would be fine just in the README.

Asking again as @YDX-2147483647 seems to have edited it as mentioned in the issue. And the question doesn't get lost.