Thank you, @DocEmmetBrown!
Please run step 4 of CONTRIBUTING.md and push the changes to this PR.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.34%. Comparing base (5862e24) to head (fb8b9a1).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3605      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.32%   91.34%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         184      184              
  Lines       16148    16180      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits        14747    14779      +32     
  Misses       1227     1227              
  Partials      174      174              

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

Thank you, @DocEmmetBrown! Please run step 4 of CONTRIBUTING.md and push the changes to this PR.

this is done :)

Thank you, @DocEmmetBrown! Just a few minor tweaks, please then we should be ready for a second LGTM+Approval before merging.

@gmlewis: I think I addressed all the concerns. I'm unsure how to re-run codecov to see if the changes "fixed" the coverage issue 🤔

fixes #3592

fixes #3592

Please add this to the PR description, so GitHub will automatically close the issue when the PR is merged.

Could you test these endpoints manually?

Could you test these endpoints manually?

@alexandear: what do you mean ? writing a quick go file that would hit those endpoints ? or testing the github api from the cli ?

Could you test these endpoints manually?

@alexandear: what do you mean ? writing a quick go file that would hit those endpoints ? or testing the github api from the cli ?

As described in CONTRIBUTING.md:

$ ./script/test.sh

Could you test these endpoints manually?

@alexandear: what do you mean ? writing a quick go file that would hit those endpoints ? or testing the github api from the cli ?

As described in CONTRIBUTING.md:

$ ./script/test.sh

oh, yeah, this was done, sorry for the confusion :)

testing .
ok      github.com/google/go-github/v73/github  (cached)        coverage: 99.1% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/test/fields             coverage: 0.0% of statements
?       github.com/google/go-github/v73/test/integration        [no test files]
testing example
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/actionpermissions               coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/appengine               coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/basicauth               coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/codespaces/newreposecretwithxcrypto             coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/codespaces/newusersecretwithxcrypto             coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/commitpr                coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/listenvironments                coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/migrations              coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/newfilewithappauth              coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/newrepo         coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/newreposecretwithxcrypto                coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/ratelimit               coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/simple          coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/tokenauth               coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/topics          coverage: 0.0% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/v73/example/verifyartifact          coverage: 0.0% of statements
testing scrape
ok      github.com/google/go-github/scrape      (cached)        coverage: 59.4% of statements
        github.com/google/go-github/scrape/example/scrape               coverage: 0.0% of statements
testing tools
ok      tools/metadata  (cached)        coverage: 81.7% of statements
testing tools/sliceofpointers
ok      tools/sliceofpointers   (cached)        coverage: 94.7% of statements

Normally, when contributors simply "push" changes to a PR, reviewers can click on this button in GitHub in order to see only the parts that have changed since the last code review:

However, when contributors use "force push", this is what reviewers see:

In this repo, we ALWAYS use squash-and-merge so that the commit history is nice and clean, as demonstrated below, which is why we ask that all contributors (in CONTRIBUTING.md) please not use "force push", in order to make the lives of code reviewers easier. Thank you.

Normally, when contributors simply "push" changes to a PR, reviewers can click on this button in GitHub in order to see only the parts that have changed since the last code review:

However, when contributors use "force push", this is what reviewers see:

In this repo, we ALWAYS use squash-and-merge so that the commit history is nice and clean, as demonstrated below, which is why we ask that all contributors (in CONTRIBUTING.md) please not use "force push", in order to make the lives of code reviewers easier. Thank you.

Sorry about that @gmlewis , I should have paid more attention to the docs. Old habits die hard ;)

Thanks for merging it !

Sorry about that @gmlewis , I should have paid more attention to the docs. Old habits die hard ;)

No problem. We have a few contributors who do this on a regular basis, and I'm hoping that if I explain why I keep asking for no "force pushing" maybe someday they will remember to stop doing that. Thank you, @DocEmmetBrown!