fix: Revert GitOps event_type to pull_request

[chmouel]

Reverted the following event types to 'pull_request':

• NoOpsCommentEventType
• TestAllCommentEventType
• TestSingleCommentEventType
• RetestSingleCommentEventType
• RetestAllCommentEventType
• OnCommentEventType
• CancelCommentSingleEventType
• CancelCommentAllEventType
• OkToTestCommentEventType

• This change restores compatibility for users relying on 'pull_request' event type for filtering GitOps comments.

• Added deprecation notice in documentation for future changes to event types.

• Added deprecation notice in the events stream when deprecated events comment is used.

• Planned deprecation period to be determined and communicated in future updates.

Breaking Changes:

• None. This change restores previous behavior.

Deprecated:

• Specific event types for GitOps comments (to be deprecated in future release).

TODO:

• Plan and communicate deprecation timeline for specific GitOps comment event types.
• Update documentation with clear migration path for future changes.

Fixes https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SRVKP-5775

Signed-off-by: Chmouel Boudjnah chmouel@redhat.com

Submitter Checklist

• [ ] 📝 Please ensure your commit message is clear and informative. For guidance on crafting effective commit messages, refer to the How to write a git commit message guide. We prefer the commit message to be included in the PR body itself rather than a link to an external website (ie: Jira ticket).

• [ ] ♽ Before submitting a PR, run make test lint to avoid unnecessary CI processing. For an even more efficient workflow, consider installing pre-commit and running pre-commit install in the root of this repository.

• [ ] ✨ We use linters to maintain clean and consistent code. Please ensure you've run make lint before submitting a PR. Some linters offer a --fix mode, which can be executed with the command make fix-linters (ensure markdownlint and golangci-lint tools are installed first).

• [ ] 📖 If you're introducing a user-facing feature or changing existing behavior, please ensure it's properly documented.

• [ ] 🧪 While 100% coverage isn't a requirement, we encourage unit tests for any code changes where possible.

• [ ] 🎁 If feasible, please check if an end-to-end test can be added. See README for more details.

• [ ] 🔎 If there's any flakiness in the CI tests, don't necessarily ignore it. It's better to address the issue before merging, or provide a valid reason to bypass it if fixing isn't possible (e.g., token rate limitations).

[chmouel]

/retest

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 64.64%. Comparing base (b466ac7) to head (4484a57). Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1729 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 64.65% 64.64% -0.02% ========================================== Files 145 146 +1 Lines 11195 11265 +70 ========================================== + Hits 7238 7282 +44 - Misses 3428 3452 +24 - Partials 529 531 +2 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[savitaashture]

@chmouel can we add e2e test to verify event_type

[chmouel]

@savitaashture it's already there? https://github.com/openshift-pipelines/pipelines-as-code/pull/1729/files#diff-f856a475e31a6ac95f3ceaafdd87afd5dc57cde21dcc66f148663ebfc1be5be1R210

[savitaashture]

@savitaashture it's already there? https://github.com/openshift-pipelines/pipelines-as-code/pull/1729/files#diff-f856a475e31a6ac95f3ceaafdd87afd5dc57cde21dcc66f148663ebfc1be5be1R210

Okok sorry missed that

[savitaashture]

Thank you

/lgtm