feat(publisher-github): assets management

[mahnunchik]

• I have read the contribution documentation for this project.
• I agree to follow the code of conduct that this project follows, as appropriate.
• The changes are appropriately documented (if applicable).
• The changes have sufficient test coverage (if applicable).
• The testsuite passes successfully on my local machine (if applicable).

Summarize your changes:

This PR includes fixes related to publisher-gihub:

• Replace special characters in the asset name publisher-github: Asset name with spaces doesn't match already uploaded asset name #1759
• Allow to override existing asset of release publisher-github: Allow to override asset with the same name #1760

[mahnunchik]

It would be awesome to remove deprecation warning by merging this PR: #1673 But there are broken tests.

[mahnunchik]

@malept is it possible to have it merged?

[mahnunchik]

@malept What should I do to have this PR merged?

[malept]

I'd prefer if there were some tests around name sanitization.

Also the PR title needs to be fixed to be conventional commits-formatted

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1761 (e15c362) into master (4824af6) will increase coverage by 12.45%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1761       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   60.28%   72.73%   +12.45%     
===========================================
  Files          71       74        +3     
  Lines        2153     2223       +70     
  Branches      411      420        +9     
===========================================
+ Hits         1298     1617      +319     
+ Misses        676      446      -230     
+ Partials      179      160       -19     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/publisher/github/src/util/github.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/utils/async-ora/src/index.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/maker/wix/src/MakerWix.ts	86.36% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/maker/zip/src/MakerZIP.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/maker/squirrel/src/MakerSquirrel.ts	77.27% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/utils/test-utils/src/index.ts	85.71% <0.00%> (+3.10%)	⬆️
packages/utils/async-ora/src/ora-handler.ts	90.00% <0.00%> (+3.33%)	⬆️
packages/maker/deb/src/MakerDeb.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+5.26%)	⬆️
packages/maker/rpm/src/MakerRpm.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+5.26%)	⬆️
packages/maker/dmg/src/MakerDMG.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+5.55%)	⬆️
... and 21 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4824af6...e15c362. Read the comment docs.

[mahnunchik]

@malept any chance to have this PR merged?

[mahnunchik]

@malept ping again

[erickzhao]

Just rebased this with latest main

[erickzhao]

I don't think this is shippable with the current GitHub.sanitizeName implementation. I tried looking for updated documentation and found this paragraph in their docs on uploading release assets:

GitHub renames asset filenames that have special characters, non-alphanumeric characters, and leading or trailing periods. The "List assets for a release" endpoint lists the renamed filenames. For more information and help, contact GitHub Support.

I couldn't find any additional details on the replacement actual algorithm used, but it doesn't seem to match the sanitizeName regex replacements based on my tests uploading release assets through the GitHub UI.

Raw filename	sanitizeName	GitHub UI
erick@256éoooz!.txt	erick-256e-oooz-.txt	erick@2aa.56eoooz.txt
fake. file.txt	fake.file.txt	fake.file.txt
erick%%%%%!!!zhao.txt	erick--------zhao.txt	erick.zhao.txt

The weird thing is that @ is not alphanumeric but does not get sanitized by GitHub. The opaqueness of their algorithm makes it hard to write exact and accurate replacement code.

Proposal

Instead of trying to dealing with the black box sanitization algorithm, do we want to force delete all assets upon --force before republishing?

[mahnunchik]

@erickzhao deleting all assets is not suitable for me because assets uploaded per platform, so multiple publishers will remove assets of each other.

[mahnunchik]

@erickzhao I think it is ok to ship sanitizeName as is and fix it in case of incorrect name generation in the future.

[mahnunchik]

@erickzhao could we have it merged? Should I rebase PR?

[erickzhao]

I think this is still a net improvement over the previous implementation.

[mahnunchik]

Could it be merged?

[mahnunchik]

@erickzhao @malept I've rebased on top of current main branch. Could the PR be merged or should I change something?

addressed