infra: add in PR labeler workflow

[AbeCoull]

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

Adds in automatic labeling for PRs. For coloring the Labels or adding description, this will be done after the code is merged.

Testing done:

Used in a personal repo already. Example: https://github.com/AbeCoull/prism-q/pull/3

Merge Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.

General

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
• I used the PR title format described in CONTRIBUTING
• I have updated any necessary documentation, including READMEs and API docs (if appropriate)

Tests

• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if appropriate)
• I have checked that my tests are not configured for a specific region or account (if appropriate)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[AbeCoull]

This may be a bit overdone to include. I can keep or delete depending on where other opinions fall

[rmshaffer]

I think it's fine, it may be noisy but there may be some test-only PRs which would be nice to have a label for.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (ca26dfa) to head (da81fa6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1229   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          169       169           
  Lines        10835     10835           
  Branches      1382      1382           
=========================================
  Hits         10835     10835           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[rmshaffer]

I think it's fine, it may be noisy but there may be some test-only PRs which would be nice to have a label for.

[rmshaffer]

I agree with this

[rmshaffer]

curious about how you chose which folders to include labels for vs. not? Some folders (e.g. parametric, registers, tasks, tracking, timings, experimental_capabilities) are not included in this list. Is it worth having a label for every folder, or should we perhaps have an "other source" label for folders we don't expect to change much?

[rmshaffer]

this folder doesn't exist in the main branch

[rmshaffer]

add bin/** here?

[rmshaffer]

*.md perhaps?