How should engine extensions be tested in the future? #13740
Description
#13718 moves the julia extension into a separate repo (which is supposed to be owned by PumasAI in the future, currently owned by @gordonwoodhull). What should development on that extension look like in the future in terms of CI? So far, PRs on the julia engine code would just trigger the normal quarto CI. What should a downstream test of quarto look like in the engine repo? It could present a lot of organizational overhead to keep the quarto tests themselves working in the extension repo if there's no super simple way of running them there while ensuring the same configuration of tools that quarto itself tests.
This also ties into the API question I posed here gordonwoodhull/quarto-julia-engine#1 as we are not sure right now what interface we can assume going forward between quarto and us.