[ci] fix workflow names

[aaronj0]

This PR should fix the issue of actions appearing as paths instead of names on the Github UI
The interpreter mode is now dynamically inserted (Cling/Clang-REPL) based on the config

before:

after:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 77.66%. Comparing base (3d3c82d) to head (8b0887e).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #620   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.66%   77.66%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines        3743     3743           
=======================================
  Hits         2907     2907           
  Misses        836      836           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mcbarton]

@aaronj0 This is quite a nice change. Could you make it add the cling version or clang repl/llvm version to the action name?

I know the purpose of this PR is to do with naming the reusable actions, but it might be nice to dynamically name the restore and save cache action names, based on whether its cling or clang-repl too.

[aaronj0]

@mcbarton I assume you meant something like:

which is the case with my latest changes

[mcbarton]

@aaronj0 Yes that is what I meant. The only change that I would make now is to include the and word in the restore action, like you did with the llvm build, and save cache action (just for consistency). If you have a reason for omitting the word 'and' in the restore cache case, just let me know. I am happy to approve without that change, as its me just be nit-picky.

[aaronj0]

@aaronj0 Yes that is what I meant. The only change that I would make now is to include the and word in the restore action, like you did with the llvm build, and save cache action (just for consistency). If you have a reason for omitting the word 'and' in the restore cache case, just let me know. I am willing to approve without that change, as its me just be nit-picky.

Sure, that's being done now, you can can approve the PR now. I will merge it once the jobs pass and verifying that everything is functionally the same.

[mcbarton]

LGTM! Thanks @aaronj0 . Merge once the ci passes.