Change QA workflow link to internal Notion

[Garandor]

Description

Fix the label checker workflow to rerun when a PR is labeled and not just on push

Update QA template with lessons learned from v3.3.0 release

• Grafana
• baikal improvements
• external notifications

relates to #599

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR have an explanation in the PR that describes this work.
• Added one label out of the L- group to this PR
• Added one or more labels out of A- and C- groups to this PR
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.

Situational Notes:

• If adding functionality, write unit tests!
• If importing a new pallet, choose a proper module index for it, and allow it in BaseFilter. Ensure every extrinsic works from front-end. If there's corresponding tool, ensure both work for each other.
• If needed, update our Javascript/Typescript APIs. These APIs are officially used by exchanges or community developers.
• If modifying existing runtime storage items, make sure to implement storage migrations for the runtime and test them with try-runtime. This includes migrations inherited from upstream changes, and you can search the diffs for modifications of #[pallet::storage] items to check for any.
• If runtime changes, need to update the version numbers properly:
  • authoring_version: The version of the authorship interface. An authoring node will not attempt to author blocks unless this is equal to its native runtime.
  • spec_version: The version of the runtime specification. A full node will not attempt to use its native runtime in substitute for the on-chain Wasm runtime unless all of spec_name, spec_version, and authoring_version are the same between Wasm and native.
  • impl_version: The version of the implementation of the specification. Nodes are free to ignore this; it serves only as an indication that the code is different; as long as the other two versions are the same then while the actual code may be different, it is nonetheless required to do the same thing. Non-consensus-breaking optimizations are about the only changes that could be made which would result in only the impl_version changing.
  • transaction_version: The version of the extrinsics interface. This number must be updated in the following circumstances: extrinsic parameters (number, order, or types) have been changed; extrinsics or pallets have been removed; or the pallet order in the construct_runtime! macro or extrinsic order in a pallet has been changed. You can run the metadata_diff.yml workflow for help. If this number is updated, then the spec_version must also be updated
• Verify benchmarks & weights have been updated for any modified runtime logics

[github-actions]

Please signoff on all commits with your name, email and gpg key for the Developer's Certificate of Origin.
git config --global user.name your_name
git config --global user.email you_email
COMMAND : git commit -s -S -m your_commit_message
-s = Signed-off-by
-S = Verify commit using gpg key
If there is more than one commit in your pull request and your git client is modern enough (2.13+), rebase the required number of commits with --signoff:
git rebase --signoff HEAD~<number_of_commits>
Then, force push:
git push -f origin <your_branch>
For instructions on managing gpg signature verification please visit: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification/signing-commits

[ghzlatarev]

While you're at this, can you also add a few things:

• Link to the Telemetry page in the monitoring section.
• Bullet that the person can hook up our internal testnet to this tool https://parachain-utilities.vercel.app/ to get some data like average block times, block authors, etc
• Mention to notify exchange teams explicitly not just subscan

[Garandor]

oh shit i just forcepushed an old state and threw away all of my changes

[ghzlatarev]

@Garandor we can also decide whether to get rid of the Moonbase-Relay chain during planning. Basically all the nodes somehow dropped because of some backend AWS thing (not exactly sure what, but it wasn't a blockchain thing). And now we have to involve moonbeam people to restart us, and i'm not sure whether we should bother them.
Nvm let's do this separately.