Add missing branch protection fields

[treee111]

overview

this is a collection of currently open pull requests targeting branch protection field updates with the goal to have a consistent code base of these fields in PyGithub. Consistent code base means both reading the fields and updating them through PyGithub.

I cherry picked the commits so that the contributors of the superseded PR's don't lose their credits.

related PyGithub issues

supersedes PR'S #2793, #2716, #2378
closes #2360, closes #2373, closes #2862, closes #2299, closes #2239

details

this table shows the state of the fields in the actual implementation (current main branch)

attribute	read actual impl. (BranchProtection.py)	write actual impl. (Branch.py)	read source PR	write source PR
required_linear_history	exists	exists	-	-
allow_force_pushes	-	exists	2793	-
allow_deletions	-	-	2793	2716
allow_fork_syncing	-	exists	2793	-
lock_branch	-	exists	2793	-
required_conversation_resolution	-	exists	2793	-
require_last_push_approval	- (RequiredPullRequestReviews.py)	-	2716	2716

testing

I tested all field with my scripts and manually checked Github UI as well as the return of PyGithub via debugger.
In addition, all unittests are also green.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (603896f) 96.69% compared to head (fe2b552) 96.70%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head fe2b552 differs from pull request most recent head 8467fe3. Consider uploading reports for the commit 8467fe3 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
github/Branch.py	93.33%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2873   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.69%   96.70%           
=======================================
  Files         142      142           
  Lines       14533    14592   +59     
=======================================
+ Hits        14053    14111   +58     
- Misses        480      481    +1     

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

[EnricoMi]

LGTM!

[EnricoMi]

@treee111 thanks for merging those existing PRs and moving this forward.

Looking at the docs I found that argument required_status_checks.contexts is deprecated in the API and replaced by required_status_checks.checks. Would you like to create another PR that

• adds checks as another argument
• checks should be of type List[Union[str, Tuple[str, int]]] so that this allows for checks=["check1", ("check2", -1), ("check3", 123456)]
• if only context is given, it's values should be used to populate required_status_checks.checks.context, rather than required_status_checks.contexts
• if both checks and context are given, context should be ignored