feat: Add get for custom org repo role

[stevehipwell]

Resolves #3370

This PR adds the missing GetCustomRepoRole function.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.30%. Comparing base (2b8c7fa) to head (03073d5).
Report is 194 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3372      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.72%   92.30%   -5.42%     
==========================================
  Files         153      176      +23     
  Lines       13390    15044    +1654     
==========================================
+ Hits        13085    13887     +802     
- Misses        215     1064     +849     
- Partials       90       93       +3     

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

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @stevehipwell !
LGTM.

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

(Please use regular push (not force-push) in this repo because we always use "squash & merge" anyway and it is much easier for reviewers to see what has changed since the last look... thank you!)

[stevehipwell]

RE force push, I'll try and do that next time but it's muscle memory at this point so apologies in advance. I think the desktop GH interface now shows diffs for force push events, but I'm currently on mobile so can't check.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis I've rebased this PR, is there anything outstanding on it?

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis I've rebased this PR, is there anything outstanding on it?

Only a second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo.
All contributors are volunteers so now we patiently wait for a second review. If you have coworkers who can review, please welcome their feedback. Thank you!

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis what is the requirement for the second approval? Someone who's already contributed or one of the maintainers or something else?

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis what is the requirement for the second approval? Someone who's already contributed or one of the maintainers or something else?

We have never put any restrictions on this. Our official thoughts are detailed in CONTRIBUTING.md. In my personal opinion, we welcome contributions from anyone who is interested in the Go programming language.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis my question above was about where the second set of eyes to approve a PR needs to come from? Do you need another maintainer or just another set of eyes from somewhere?

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis my question above was about where the second set of eyes to approve a PR needs to come from? Do you need another maintainer or just another set of eyes from somewhere?

I apologize that my answer was not clear, as I was attempting to answer this question.
The answer is the latter, preferably someone who is interested in the Go programming language.

[gmlewis]

@stevehipwell - can you please make a concerted effort to stop force-pushing in this repo, as now I must re-read the whole PR because I cannot see what changed since the last review.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis I'm just rebasing onto the min branch, my code isn't changing and GitHub shouldn't be clearing your approval. I can stop doing that, but you'll need to do it before the automation runs and the PR is merged to get a linear commit history (and in some cases GitHub can't do it in the UI).

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis I'm just rebasing onto the min branch, my code isn't changing and GitHub shouldn't be clearing your approval. I can stop doing that, but you'll need to do it before the automation runs and the PR is merged to get a linear commit history (and in some cases GitHub can't do it in the UI).

Actually, this isn't necessary because we always use "Squash and merge" in this repo, so the commit history is always clean.

[tomfeigin]

LGTM

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @tomfeigin !
Merging.