Remove edited type from PR automation init review trigger, enable concurrency

[AetherUnbound]

Fixes

Fixes #3770 by @AetherUnbound (hopefully, hard to know ahead of time)

Description

Update: This PR now only removes edited from the pull_request_review trigger type. It also adds a concurrency limit, per @dhruvkb's suggestion: #3771 (comment)

This PR removes the edited type from both the pull_request and pull_request_review workflow triggers for the PR automation init workflow. I suspect that this particular trigger is unnecessary for any of the actions we actually want to take when the workflow is triggered. It also makes debugging difficult. When looking at the init run history, it's hard to tell which events actually triggered the run in some cases:

I'm hoping that this somehow addresses the issue for why the PR automation was seemingly triggered in some cases and not others, as perhaps there was a race condition between edited and closed.

Testing Instructions

Merge and find out!

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title likeUpdate index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.
• I ran the DAG documentation generator (if applicable).

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[dhruvkb]

@AetherUnbound the edited trigger in workflow is there to automatically link PRs to issues in case the "Fixes ..." line is added to the description after the PR is created.

This usually happens when contributors do not follow the PR description accurately and either do not fill out that line properly or use a variant that GitHub does not recognise. When a maintainer later edits the description, the edited event is helpful to automatically move the issue into the "In Progress" column.

As for the race-condition hypothesis, concurrency settings would be the better, idiomatic approach to fixing those rather than reducing the number of triggers.

[AetherUnbound]

Ah, that's a great call! Let me try that instead 😄

[dhruvkb]

This makes sense to me, it should ensure that events from one PR do not enter into race situations.

[obulat]

Let's test this :)