[FEAT]: github_actions_secret use full_name of repository

[paulaustin-automutatio]

Describe the need

Currently github_actions_secret expects only the repository name and not the full_name prefix by an organization.

For example the following doesn't work. It uses the owner of the current user (or specified on the provider).

resource "github_actions_secret" "my_secret" {
repository = "my-org/my-repo"
secret_name = "MY_SECRET"
plaintext_value = "***"
}

It generates this URL

https://api.github.com/repos/my-login/my-org/docs.automutatio.com/actions/secrets/public-key

instead of

https://api.github.com/repos/my-org/my-repo/docs.automutatio.com/actions/secrets/public-key

The only way to fix it would be to specify the owner in the provider config.

I would change github_actions_secret so that repository if presented with the 2 parts it would use the owner from there rather than assuming it was just the repository name.

Then you could do

repository = data.github_repository.repo.full_name

SDK Version

No response

API Version

No response

Relevant log output

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[KenSpur]

@kfcampbell

I am working on the codespaces_secrets which will be similar #1729.

Currently name and full_name is what is used in the data sources while the resources use repository as name.

For consistency reasons would we want to move to

repository & repository_full_name and depricate the name/full_name or also use name & full_name and depricate repository as name on the resources?

[KenSpur]

Same for the public_key's

[kfcampbell]

That is an excellent question. We should definitely shoot for consistency, though it'll probably be a little bit before we can release a breaking change. I have a weak preference for name and full_name because when I think of a repository I tend to think of the full slug (e.g. integrations/terraform-provider-github). Thoughts?

[KenSpur]

Concerning codespaces_secrets, i have kept the implementation focused and implemented it like the currently existing actions and dependabot secrets.

@kfcampbell name and full_name does seem to be most appropriate as targetting repositories seems generally implied in nameing etc aswel.

Should this feature request be implemented focused on just github_actions_secrets/github_*_secrets or should this be looked at more generally? As using the owner provided as env var or in the provider seems to be the general implementation (e.g. github_repository).

[kfcampbell]

It should be looked at more generally...I definitely have issues with the environment variable, as it makes it difficult to use the provider anonymously and to change owners during a run. The challenge will be to improve that experience in a non-breaking manner if possible.

[github-actions]

👋 Hey Friends, this issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has no recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Please add the Status: Pinned label if you feel that this issue needs to remain open/active. Thank you for your contributions and help in keeping things tidy!