PR Checks: Use tools: linked rather than tools: latest

[angelapwen]

As of #2281, we introduced linked as a more descriptive value for the tools input. This PR updates our own PR checks and workflows with the new value and changes the input/output in the prepare-test Action to use linked.

All of the required PR checks that had latest in their names, for main have been updated. As we release v3 and v2 we'll want to do the same for those branches.

Merge / deployment checklist

• Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
• Confirm the readme has been updated if necessary.
• Confirm the changelog has been updated if necessary.

[github-advanced-security]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

[henrymercer]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

I think this is happening because we renamed tools: latest to tools: linked. Once we've merged this PR we can go through to the tool status page and delete the analysis for tools: latest to avoid a stale tip.

[NlightNFotis]

This looks comprehensive to me, thank you for your effort cleaning this up.

I have a couple of questions (minor, so not to hold up this PR from getting merged):

• Is there any way for us to know if we have forgotten any places where this should be sustituted, save for doing a whole source-root grep?
• If we have forgotten anything, my understanding is that the impact is going to be low, given the intentional backwards compatibility in the change. Is this still deemed accurate, or am I missing something that requires greater precision in the change?

[angelapwen]

Thanks for the review!!

• Is there any way for us to know if we have forgotten any places where this should be sustituted, save for doing a whole source-root grep?

I also just greped it 🤔 I don't know that there's a better way, but (as you mentioned) the impact is low so I think it's fine if we end up with some extra latest workflows.

• If we have forgotten anything, my understanding is that the impact is going to be low, given the intentional backwards compatibility in the change. Is this still deemed accurate, or am I missing something that requires greater precision in the change?

That's still accurate! I just saw the warnings when I was checking the logs of some PR checks and thought it would be best to switch over. The linked naming really clarifies the intent, I think!