Allow mirroring private org repositories

[simonhammes]

The /users/{username}/repos endpoint does not return private org repositories.
The /search/repositories endpoint has to be used instead.

Related: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/24382

[christophdb]

It is important to mention, that a new env variable is used: "GITHUB_ORG" instead of "GITHUB_USERNAME".
Works like a charm.

[jdevera]

(not a maintainer, just a lurker)
This is cool! Why are the user and org settings mutually exclusive, though?

[jaedle]

Hey 👋

First of all thank your very much for your contribution!
Nice catch, never noticed that (not working with private repos on orgs).

Is there any specific reason we could not use the current environment variable and determine if the configured username is an org or user?

A call to the user lookup by id should reveal whether the configured user is an organisation or a regular github user, so we could use this to adjust the behavior.

[simonhammes]

Is there any specific reason we could not use the current environment variable and determine if the configured username is an org or user?

A call to the user lookup by id should reveal whether the configured user is an organisation or a regular github user, so we could use this to adjust the behavior.

Thanks for the hint, I just pushed some changes to use this approach.

The code now also supports MIRROR_PRIVATE_REPOSITORIES and modifies the query based on its value.

PS: Hide whitespace makes reviewing a bit easier

[jaedle]

Thanks for your contribution 🙏
I will review this ASAP

[jaedle]

I just had a look at he proposed changes. They look perfectly fine. Sadly the complexity of the method to get the repositories in addition with current pending changes seem to increase radically.

Due to that, I would love to do a refactoring and add tests for this particular part of the tool. Otherwise future requirements are likely to break existing functionality and I know that some people are using that in production.

If you are fine with that, I would love to use your proposed changes as blueprint to build the functionality test-driven after the refactoring.

Does that sound fine to you?

[simonhammes]

Due to that, I would love to do a refactoring and add tests for this particular part of the tool. Otherwise future requirements are likely to break existing functionality and I know that some people are using that in production.

That makes sense

Does that sound fine to you?

Sure, go ahead 🙂