Update ProtectionChanges to contain the remaining possible return values

[eolso]

Fixes issue #2485. The From values only seem to come in the variants of string, bool or []string, so it's possible these objects could be consolidated into something more generic maybe.
e.g.

typeFromStringstruct {
From*string`json:"from,omitempty"`
}
typeFromBoolstruct {
From*bool`json:"from,omitempty"`
}
typeFromStringSlicestruct {
From []string`json:"from,omitempty"`
}

This went against the current pattern so I made everything a <Value>Changes struct instead :D

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2486 (e7143e7) into master (08819b7) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2486 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.03% 98.03% =======================================
Files 122 122 Lines 10705 10705 =======================================
Hits 10495 10495 Misses 144 144 Partials 66 66 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
github/repos.go	98.67% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @eolso !
Just a few minor tweaks, please.

[eolso]

Fixed!

@gmlewis the structs for the fields AuthorizedActorNames and AuthorizedActorsOnly could be left alone to prevent any breaking changes if that's preferred? I only renamed them to keep the pattern consistent in the struct. I also only added the Changes to the end of each type name because RequiredStatusChecks was already defined elsewhere 😅

[gmlewis]

Fixed!

@gmlewis the structs for the fields AuthorizedActorNames and AuthorizedActorsOnly could be left alone to prevent any breaking changes if that's preferred? I only renamed them to keep the pattern consistent in the struct. I also only added the Changes to the end of each type name because RequiredStatusChecks was already defined elsewhere sweat_smile

Thank you, @eolso - I'll review this after work.

Meanwhile, yes, I prefer to avoid breaking API changes if possible... and in this case I think it is probably fine to have the slight inconsistencies... so maybe reverting these two name changes would be preferable. If any other contributors have other opinions, I'm happy to discuss it.

[eolso]

Agreed, "consistency" can wait. Reverted breaking changes 😄

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @eolso !
LGTM.
Merging.