Add support for issue metadata and dynamic summary

[jamacku]

It replaces the old comment logic with the new one that uses issue metadata
to story helper data. It allows us to create only one comment with a summary
of all tests and their results, which is dynamically updated.

Also, enable issue comments for our Testing Farm GitHub Action repository.

---

Replaces:

• Create GitHub comment summary report from Testing Farm results #211

TODO:

• Show some pictures
• Handle cancel events

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.81119% with 32 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.47%. Comparing base (d2b99fd) to head (8066095).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/pull-request.ts	46.42%	30 Missing ⚠️
src/metadata.ts	98.33%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/summary.ts	99.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #234      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.37%   91.47%   -1.91%     
==========================================
  Files          11       14       +3     
  Lines         604      856     +252     
  Branches      114      156      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits          564      783     +219     
- Misses         40       73      +33     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Testing Farm results

name	compose	arch	status	time	logs
Timeout test	Fedora-latest	x86_64	✅ passed	8min 18s	test pipeline
Smoke test	Fedora-latest	x86_64	✅ passed	3min 20s	test pipeline
Secrets test	Fedora-latest	x86_64	✅ passed	3min 3s	test pipeline
Variables test	Fedora-latest	x86_64	✅ passed	3min 52s	test pipeline

[phracek]

I don't know now if this change is braking, but I have one proposal. I guess 'pull_request_status_name' needs to be dependent on Summary.
What about if 'pull_request_status_name' is not defined?

[phracek]

But this is amazing work. Thanks for moving TFaGA to be more effective and usable for users.

[jamacku]

I don't know now if this change is braking, but I have one proposal.

I set it as breaking because we are changing the content and behavior of the comment. Previously, we created a new comment for each run of the Action (a new notification was sent). Now, we create only one comment, which we update, so only one notification is sent.

I guess 'pull_request_status_name' needs to be dependent on Summary. What about if 'pull_request_status_name' is not defined?

pull_request_status_name has a default value of Fedora. But I think everyone is using statuses and changing/setting the pull_request_status_name input to some value.

[phracek]

LGTM. Thanks