Add bazel command to explicit command line for workflows

[maggie-lou]

Now the explicit command line will look like this (before it didn't include the bazelisk command):

The primary intention for this change is that the bb explain button assumes that the explicit command line includes the bazel binary. Currently we get errors like this

This will also make it more obvious which bazel binary is running for workflows

[bduffany]

I feel like explicit command line might not be the right thing to use for the bb explain button. The explicit command line is sort of like "the raw text that the user entered into the terminal" and it doesn't feel like there's a strong guarantee that the command should be runnable outside that particular user's terminal environment? e.g. the user might have custom bazelrcs, env vars etc. and we can't guarantee that those will be set the same when we try to explain their invocation, if we're just using the explicit command line.

[maggie-lou]

I feel like explicit command line might not be the right thing to use for the bb explain button. The explicit command line is sort of like "the raw text that the user entered into the terminal" and it doesn't feel like there's a strong guarantee that the command should be runnable outside that particular user's terminal environment? e.g. the user might have custom bazelrcs, env vars etc. and we can't guarantee that those will be set the same when we try to explain their invocation, if we're just using the explicit command line.

Maybe we should use effective command line then? Another additional consideration that both approaches fail at is if there's a redacted value