CI: Adjust FOSSA API secret name

[mattlord]

Description

This is a follow-up to: #14333

You can see that the run on the merge to main failed: https://github.com/vitessio/vitess/actions/runs/7466472041/job/20317903610

The FOSSA part of the workflow only runs on main so there's no other way to test it than to merge:

vitess/.github/workflows/static_checks_etc.yml

Lines 36 to 45 in 9df71e0

	- name: Run FOSSA scan and upload build data
	# Fails on pull requests when using the API key secret.
	# In order to run it on pull requests we would need to
	# generate a push only token and specify that as plain
	# text here:
	# https://github.com/fossa-contrib/fossa-action#push-only-api-token
	if: github.ref == 'refs/heads/main'
	uses: fossa-contrib/fossa-action@v2
	with:
	fossa-api-key: ${{secrets.fossaApiKey}}

We have an open discussion with CNCF to get a push-only API token so that we can enable the scan for pull-requests as well using that: https://github.com/fossa-contrib/fossa-action#push-only-api-token

Related Issue(s)

• Follow-up to: CI: Re-enable FOSSA scan and add Codecov #14333

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[mattlord]

This is unrelated, but should make the codecov workflow more reliable/stable.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (9df71e0) 47.26% compared to head (d564d17) 47.29%.
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14918      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   47.26%   47.29%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1136     1137       +1     
  Lines      238484   238657     +173     
==========================================
+ Hits       112721   112865     +144     
- Misses     117158   117172      +14     
- Partials     8605     8620      +15     

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