fix: Use pull_request_target in Cypress Applitools workflow

[geido]

SUMMARY

The Applitools API key is not present when a PR is launched by a fork. Using the pull_request_target should launch the workflow from the target branch and should avoid failure. This is a temporary change to unblock CI.

Read this for more context: https://github.community/t/can-workflow-changes-be-used-with-pull-request-target/178626

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Has associated issue:
• Required feature flags:
• Changes UI
• Includes DB Migration (follow approval process in SIP-59)
  • Migration is atomic, supports rollback & is backwards-compatible
  • Confirm DB migration upgrade and downgrade tested
  • Runtime estimates and downtime expectations provided
• Introduces new feature or API
• Removes existing feature or API

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #19996 (c576dcb) into master (b7cff83) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #19996   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.28%   66.28%           
=======================================
  Files        1712     1712           
  Lines       63968    63968           
  Branches     6731     6731           
=======================================
  Hits        42404    42404           
  Misses      19853    19853           
  Partials     1711     1711           

Flag	Coverage Δ
hive	53.65% <ø> (ø)
javascript	51.27% <ø> (ø)
mysql	81.99% <ø> (ø)
postgres	82.04% <ø> (ø)
presto	53.51% <ø> (ø)
python	82.47% <ø> (ø)
sqlite	81.78% <ø> (ø)
unit	48.63% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b7cff83...c576dcb. Read the comment docs.

[villebro]

LGTM and makes sense, so approving to unblock - Tagging this PR as it's related (let's make sure we address all the concerns raised in the associated PRs/articles): #12241