refactor: Deletes issue and PR templates

[kellijohnson-NOAA]

What is the feature?

• Moves PR and issue templates to NOAA-FIMS/.github/.github so they are available to all repositories within NOAA-FIMS.

How have you implemented the solution?

Moved the files to NOAA-FIMS/.github/.github see the commit message for the exact commit.

Does the PR impact any other area of the project?

The refactor issue template was not moved.

How to test this change

Go to another repository in FIMS and see the available issue templates 🤯 or see below

Developer pre-PR checklist

• I relied on GitHub actions to 🧪 things for me while I sat on the 🛋️.

[github-actions]

Instructions for code reviewer

Hello reviewer, thanks for taking the time to review this PR!

• Please use this checklist during your review, checking off items that you have verified are complete!
• For PRs that don't make changes to code (e.g., changes to README.md or Github actions workflows), feel free to skip over items on the checklist that are not relevant. Remember it is still important to do a thorough review.
• Then, comment on the pull request with your review indicating where you have questions or changes need to be made before merging.
• Remember to review every line of code you’ve been asked to review, look at the context, make sure you’re improving code health, and compliment developers on good things that they do.
• PR reviews are a great way to learn, so feel free to share your tips and tricks. However, for optional changes (i.e., not required for merging), please include nit: (for nitpicking) before making the suggestion. For example, nit: I prefer using a data.frame() instead of a matrix because...
• Engage with the developer when they respond to comments and check off additional boxes as they become complete so the PR can be merged in when all the tasks are fulfilled. Make it clear when this has been reached by commenting on the PR with something like This PR is now ready to be merged, no changes needed.

Checklist

• The PR is requested to be merged into the appropriate branch (typically main)
• The code is well-designed.
• The functionality is good for the users of the code.
• Any User Interface changes are sensible and look good.
• The code isn’t more complex than it needs to be.
• Code coverage remains high, indicating the new code is tested.
• The developer used clear names for everything.
• Comments are clear and useful, and mostly explain why instead of what.
• Code is appropriately documented (doxygen and roxygen).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.56%. Comparing base (0296e41) to head (d43e7eb).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #642   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.56%   78.56%           
=======================================
  Files          36       36           
  Lines        1945     1945           
  Branches      141      141           
=======================================
  Hits         1528     1528           
  Misses        374      374           
  Partials       43       43           

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

[k-doering-NOAA]

Thanks @kellijohnson-NOAA , I did a little bit of playing around with issue templates in this repo (which can be deleted shortly). I learned:

• You get all of the issue forms from the .github repository showing up (I don't think there is a way to change this?). This is unfortunate, as I could see the "seaside chat" request in the repo, when it probably isn't needed by all repos.
• If you add a new form to the .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE subfolder in a single repository (regardless if it is named the same or differently than an existing form in the .github repository), you will ONLY see that individual template and none of the ones from the .github repository. I guess that means you would have to copy over templates from the .github repository if you wanted to use them, creating some duplication?

I guess knowing better how these issue templates in the .github repository work, do you still think moving them to the .github repository is the best course of action? If so, feel free to merge in the PR; if not, perhaps we should reconsider.

[kellijohnson-NOAA]

Thanks @k-doering-NOAA for the review. I reverted the .github repository back one commit so the seaside chat issue template is no longer available globally, which addresses your first concern. Regarding your second concern, I think that if a repo feels like copying over some of the templates from .github to a specific repository we should think about the opposite action of why not use all the templates and/or add the specific template in the repo to .github? I am going to merge this pull request because I think the benefit of reducing current amount of duplication is more beneficial than the future problem of having duplication.