fix: allow google_apis_ps16k as a valid target

[mikehardy]

Hi there, we'd like to test using the new 16kb page size to make sure things work, but isn't working with the action here currently

As pointed out in the linked issue, it's a fairly trivial input validator change, so I thought I'd just propose a PR

Thanks!

• Fixes 16k page size #403

[mikehardy]

Saw in related comment here #424 (comment) that needed to add to test and do the transpile to JS, so just pushed that

[ychescale9]

Thanks for the contribution! If you don't mind can you please update the table in README.md to include google_apis_ps16k in the description?

[mikehardy]

I addressed the thought on target validation with a redone implementation that removes validation but still allows (and tested) the playstore shorthand

I updated the docs related to target to reflect current reality of targets based on sdkmanager | sort | grep where I searched atd and ps16k to see what was available when and on what arch + channel

[ychescale9]

should we also update actions.yml's target description to:

target:
  description: 'target of the system image - e.g. `default`, `google_apis`, `google_apis_ps16k`, `playstore`, `playstore_ps16k`, `android-wear`, `android-wear-cn`, `android-tv`, `google-tv`, `aosp_atd`, `google_atd`, `android-automotive`, `android-automotive-playstore, `android-desktop`. Please run `sdkmanager --list` to see the available targets.'

[mikehardy]

I found the 'playstore' (and 'playstore_ps16k') shortcuts to be surprising personally, in all other cases you just use the actual target name but there are these two underdocumented shortcuts?

So I did update action.yml and README but I used the real sdkmanager target names so that people just get used to using those

I did not remove that feature though, I respect backwards-compability a lot more than that - just for documentation seems using the actual target names is more consistent

I pushed an updated second commit with the README.md and action.yml changes

what do you think?

[ychescale9]

Looks good!

[asfernandes]

Can we have a tagged version with this change?