CI: Add the label-check workflow to verify changelog labels on each PR

[anshgoyalevil]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• part of: [Feature]: (Re)Introduce changelog-related labels and require them for PRs #4799
• Add a GitHub Action that will verify that a PR has a specific categorization label before it can be merged. We already have a bunch of those labels changelog:*** labels

Description of the changes

• This workflow would first check if the PR is created by @dependabot or not. If no, it would proceed to check for the labels on that pull request. For example:
• A new PR is created. The Label Check workflow would fail
• A maintainer adds some label bug on the PR, workflow would again run, but would still fail since the label bug doesn't start with changelog:
• The maintainer now adds some label changelog:**, this time, Label Check CI would pass.

How was this change tested?

• Without any label, failed GH Action: https://github.com/anshgoyalevil/jaeger/actions/runs/6531596646/attempts/2
• With the Label changelog: feature: Passing GH Action: https://github.com/anshgoyalevil/jaeger/actions/runs/6531596646/attempts/3
• With the label bug and not changelog: feature: https://github.com/anshgoyalevil/jaeger/actions/runs/6531596646/attempts/4
• With three labels bug, documentation, and changelog: feature: https://github.com/anshgoyalevil/jaeger/actions/runs/6531596646

How to test this PR?

• Play with the labels by applying or removing them and see the Verify Label action fail/pass.

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: yarn lint and yarn test.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.

[yurishkuro]

closed?

[anshgoyalevil]

This workflow was working correctly but later I realized that I couldn't solve the complete issue of modifying the release scripts as I don't know Python :(

[anshgoyalevil]

I am currently trying out the modification to the Python script as I learn it. In the meantime, others can try their own approach. Merging this PR would have constrained me to resolve the other part of the issue quickly, as no other folk would then try out their hand thereafter.

[yurishkuro]

Having a check on PRs before merging is an independent of whether we have a release script making use of that.

There seems to be in-progress PR for the latter #4849

[anshgoyalevil]

I managed to modify the python script also, but #4849 seems to have a better approach.

Feel free to play with the PR by adding/removing labels and verify if the action is working properly

[yurishkuro]