Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The DEFAULT_RUNNER_LABELS array in GitHub Actions language services contains outdated runner labels, causing VSCode to suggest deprecated runners while missing current ones in auto-completion.
I've validated a lot of available runners and confirmed the current implementation doesn't match GitHub's supported environments.
Describe the solution you'd like
Update the DEFAULT_RUNNER_LABELS array to remove unsupported runners (ubuntu-18.04, ubuntu-20.04, macos-10.15, macos-11, macos-12) and add current ones (ubuntu-24.04, windows-2025, macos-13/14/15, ARM runners, etc.) based on my research.
Additional context
I verified that VSCode's auto-completion directly uses this array.
I noticed this issue while studying the codebase to better understand the "Context access might be invalid" problem. The extension is very very helpful - this update would make it even better.
Reference
I'd be happy to contribute a PR to fix this issue if you think it would be helpful.
Let me know if I should proceed with implementing this update or if you'd prefer a different approach.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The
DEFAULT_RUNNER_LABELSarray in GitHub Actions language services contains outdated runner labels, causing VSCode to suggest deprecated runners while missing current ones in auto-completion.I've validated a lot of available runners and confirmed the current implementation doesn't match GitHub's supported environments.
Describe the solution you'd like
Update the
DEFAULT_RUNNER_LABELSarray to remove unsupported runners (ubuntu-18.04,ubuntu-20.04,macos-10.15,macos-11,macos-12) and add current ones (ubuntu-24.04,windows-2025,macos-13/14/15,ARM runners, etc.) based on my research.Additional context
I verified that VSCode's auto-completion directly uses this array.
I noticed this issue while studying the codebase to better understand the
"Context access might be invalid"problem. The extension is very very helpful - this update would make it even better.Reference
I'd be happy to contribute a PR to fix this issue if you think it would be helpful.
Let me know if I should proceed with implementing this update or if you'd prefer a different approach.