feat!: Add support for pagination options in rules API methods

[ktruedat]

BREAKING CHANGE: GetRulesForBranch, GetAllRulesets, and GetAllRepositoryRulesets now accept opts.

Updated GetRulesForBranch, GetAllRulesets, and GetAllRepositoryRulesets methods to accept optional pagination parameters (ListOptions). Enhanced test cases to validate the use of these parameters in API requests.

Fixes: #3560

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.24%. Comparing base (6a7684f) to head (3d1050a).
Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3562      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.23%   91.24%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         183      183              
  Lines       16053    16075      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits        14646    14668      +22     
  Misses       1231     1231              
  Partials      176      176              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[gmlewis]

Please make sure to run the scripts mentioned in step 4 of CONTRIBUTING.md and push the changes (not force-push) to this PR. Thank you!

[gmlewis]

Also, to fix the CodeCov issues, please add testBadOptions to your new tests. You can see examples in other locations.

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @ktruedat!
LGTM.

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

@stevehipwell - might you have time for a code review? Thank you!

[stevehipwell]

Do we not want tests to cover the case where we set opts to nil? I'd have assumed that the existing tests would use nil and new tests would have been added for the pagination pattern?

[gmlewis]

Testing with opts being nil sounds like a good idea in this case.
In the general case, that would be uninteresting, but it would probably be good to show it, although we still can't see how GitHub interprets the missing query parameter... so I'm fine either way.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis wouldn't testing without opts catch a regression with the method where it no longer supported nil?

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis wouldn't testing without opts catch a regression with the method where it no longer supported nil?

Yes, great idea. I like it. Thank you, @stevehipwell!
@ktruedat - could you please add that to this PR?

[ktruedat]

@gmlewis of course! I actually wanted to do separate tests from the start but wasn't sure about it. Will add them in a few

[ktruedat]

@gmlewis @stevehipwell I included separate tests with ListOptions for every modified operation. I didn't include the full mock response in the client response since we are not really interested in the response itself, but rather testing the existence of the query params. Let me know if that's okay, thanks!