Copy type-feature from issue to PR

[hugovk]

Phase two of Workflow change coming: mandatory reviews on new features:

Two weeks from now, Bedevere will start labeling PRs with type-feature if the issue is explicitly labeled as type-feature. Again, we will be observing how the PRs behave and whether this isn’t disruptive.

Two weeks is a long time in open source :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (f2020c0) to head (774b4d3).

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #710   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           18        18           
  Lines         2149      2173   +24     
  Branches        97       100    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits          2149      2173   +24     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Python_3.10.21	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Python_3.11.16	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Python_3.12.14	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Python_3.13.15	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Python_3.14.7	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Python_3.15.0-rc.2	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
bedevere/gh_issue.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/test_gh_issue.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[StanFromIreland]

The current change looks correct to me.

Two points, however, that I'd like to highlight on the general design:

• Removing the label isn't recorded. I fear this may come up in practice, e.g. possibly in the case of docs issues (which are sometimes labelled as type-feature), but it's avoidable by also removing it from the issue, so it's not a major issue.
• It doesn't sync on updates to the issue. So if the type-feature label is added to an issue after the PR is opened, it won't automatically be propagated, unless the PR itself is also updated. This means it could be missed before a merge.

Neither of these are too troublesome or likely to come up in practice, so I think we can try the current (simpler) implementation, and revisit if the issues pop up in practice. In any case, please post an announcement after deploying as it's likely to cause some confusion, especially considering the "two weeks" since this was originally discussed.