feat!: Add login query param support to ListCredentialAuthorizations

[zeusdeux]

BREAKING CHANGE: ListCredentialAuthorizations now takes opts *CredentialAuthorizationsListOptions instead of ListOptions.

As per the docs for the List SAML SSO authorizations for an organization endpoint — it supports a query param named login to filter the authorizations by a github user.

This PR adds support for passing this login query param via a new struct (CredentialAuthorizationsListOptions) which embeds ListOptions as ListOptions itself only supports Page and PerPage query params.

[zeusdeux]

Chose to embed ListOptions instead of extending it as it is reused for other List* functions which don't necessarily support the login query parameter.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.94%. Comparing base (2b8c7fa) to head (c849e6f).
Report is 113 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #3270 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.72% 92.94% -4.78% 
==========================================
Files 153 171 +18 Lines 13390 11669 -1721 ==========================================
- Hits 13085 10846 -2239 - Misses 215 729 +514 - Partials 90 94 +4 

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

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @zeusdeux!
One tiny nit, please, for the generated godocs, then we should be ready for a second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

[zeusdeux]

Thanks for the quick review @gmlewis! Accepted your suggestion!

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @zeusdeux !
LGTM.

Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

[zeusdeux]

@gmlewis should I tag someone as a second reviewer?

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis should I tag someone as a second reviewer?

Since this repo is maintained strictly by volunteers, I try to not tag individuals to respect their time unless there is an urgent need.
Having said that, please feel free to perform code reviews on any PRs that have been labeled "NeedsReview".

[zeusdeux]

Sounds good @gmlewis! Thank you for the information.
Btw, re: failing build — any notes on the codecov/project failure? Not sure if I should take that into account given the test change in this PR covers the new code path. 🙏🏽

[gmlewis]

Btw, re: failing build — any notes on the codecov/project failure? Not sure if I should take that into account given the test change in this PR covers the new code path. 🙏🏽

Unfortunately, you can ignore the Codecov report, as we are waiting for #3221 to be addressed by @google-admin and update this repo's Codecov authentication token so that our reports will be useful.

[zeusdeux]

Makes sense. Does that mean that this PR only needs one more ✅ and it'll be good to land?
And if so, what's the release process? Thanks for all the help so far @gmlewis! 🙏🏽

[alexef]

lgtm

[gmlewis]

Does that mean that this PR only needs one more ✅ and it'll be good to land?

Yes, and it is now ready to merge. Thank you, @alexef !

And if so, what's the release process?

We cut a new release about once per month, so the next release should be in three to four weeks.

Merging.

[zeusdeux]

Thank you @gmlewis and @alexef! 🙏🏽