Check documentation-only PRs differently

[simonkrogmann]

Purpose of this PR

To lower the hurdle of changing documentation and tutorials, I added a second checklist for documentation only that doesn't include make test. The Github action now automatically checks the right checklist.

I tested the github action with act but there might be differences to the actual github runners.

Points for discussion:

• more checkboxes?
• should the definition of documentation include more filetypes except .md

Type of change

Indicate the items relevant for your PR by replacing ◻️ with ☑️.
Do not delete any lines. This makes it easier to understand which areas are affected by your changes and which are not.

Parts concerned

• ◻️ GAMS Code
• ◻️ R-scripts
• ◻️ Documentation (GAMS incode documentation, comments, tutorials)
• ◻️ Input data / CES parameters
• ☑️ Tests, CI/CD (continuous integration/deployment)
• ◻️ Configuration (switches in main.gms, default.cfg, and scenario_config*.csv files)
• ◻️ Other (please give a description)

Impact

• ◻️ Bug fix
• ◻️ Refactoring
• ☑️ New feature
• ◻️ Change of parameter values or input data (including CES parameters)
• ◻️ Minor change (default scenarios show only small differences)
• ◻️ Fundamental change of results of default scenarios

Checklist

Do not delete any line. Leave unfinished elements unchecked so others know how far along you are.
In the end all checkboxes must be ticked before you can merge.

• I executed the automated model tests (make test) after my final commit and all tests pass (FAIL 0)
• I adjusted the reporting in remind2 if and where it was needed
• I adjusted the madrat packages (mrremind and other packages involved) for input data generation if and where it was needed
• My code follows the coding etiquette
• I explained my changes within the PR, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I checked that the in-code documentation is up-to-date
• I adjusted forbiddenColumnNames in readCheckScenarioConfig.R in case the PR leads to deprecated switches
• I updated the CHANGELOG.md correctly (added, changed, fixed, removed, input data/calibration)

Further information (optional)

[dklein-pik]

Cool, thanks. Of course, GMS files also contain documentation (documentation embedded in the code in the form of comments). If we also want to allow changes in gms files for documentation only PRs, we would need to verify that the user has indeed edited only the comments in a GMS file.

[simonkrogmann]

Do we have any reliable tool that can check if only comments were changed in a GMS file? I'd be favor for continuing to require make test if those files are changed.

[simonkrogmann]

Also, my strategy doesn't seem to work on a github runner so I will look for another way of implementing this.

[dklein-pik]

Do we have any reliable tool that can check if only comments were changed in a GMS file?

No, not that I know of.

[tobiasdiez]

Maybe helpful: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/changed-files#on-pull_request-