fix(pullrequests) Do not mention a pull request in dry run when there are no changes

[olblak]

An expected pull request is mentioned in dry run logs even if there is no change

Fix #484
Fix #440
In the current state, this PR fix two bugs which by the way could be split into two Pull requests :)

1. In Dry mode, don't mention that a PR will be open if it's not the case (An expected pull request is mentioned in dry run logs even if there is no change #484 )
2. Pull request object correctly using the updated configuration. This avoids open pull requests with a message containing templating instruction such as Bump app to {{ source "source" }}

Test

To test this pull request, you can run the following commands:

1. Run updatecli in dry mode and debug enable, with a updatecli configuration that shouldn't open a pullrequest. We shouldn't have pull request message
2. Run updatecli in dry mode and debug enable, with a updatecli configuration that should open a pull request and where the title contains templating instruction. We should have pull request message with the correct title

Additional Information

Tradeoff

Potential improvement

While working on this PR, I realize that we have confusion about what a pull request title should be. The title should be configured in the spec level and not at the pull request level.

pullrequestID:
  kind: github
  title: my title
  spec:
     label: 
        - dependencies

or

pullrequestID:
  kind: github
  spec:
    title: my title 
    label: 
        - dependencies

At the moment the latter example, is implement in the code in a way that it's totally useless.
I also realize that the way to generate a pullrequest title is overly complicated and could drastically simplified by just having the two following cases
1 A title is specified in the spec, then we use that value
2. No title specified so we let GitHub should, which will be the first commit title

[dduportal]

I'm wondering how this change could help?

The type passed to the object was already a *Config(e.g. a pointer) so the calling method on the PullRequest were already able to change its pointer reference.

Did I miss something?

[olblak]

That was my understanding as well but it doesn't seem to work. I think that part would benefit from so refactoring. But I first needs to master the debugger :p

[dduportal]

Given this consideration + the fact that the updatecli compiled from this PR stills creates PR with the litteral {{ source ...}}, do you mind removing this commit, so we can proceed on the rest of the code changes (eg fixing #484) ?

Many thanks for taking time for this!

[dduportal]

For info, since this is only a "bugfix", I'm rebasing this PR to update it + remove the "PR title templating" tentative fix that would be a subsequent PR, so we can merge the initial fix.

[dduportal]

At the moment the latter example, is implement in the code in a way that it's totally useless.
I also realize that the way to generate a pullrequest title is overly complicated and could drastically simplified by just having the two following cases
1 A title is specified in the spec, then we use that value

2. No title specified so we let GitHub should, which will be the first commit title

@olblak do you mind opening an issue describing this thought process and pointing some code elements? That would allow us to discuss the subject, reach a consensus and then implement it in async :)

[olblak]

@olblak do you mind opening an issue describing this thought process and pointing some code elements? That would allow us to discuss the subject, reach a consensus and then implement it in async :)

Yep, yep, which is why I mentioned it in "Potential Improvement" section