feat: filter repos by team ownership

[zkoppert]

Pull Request

fixes #74

This pull request adds a feature to support specifying a team in addition to an organization. This enables users to run the action on all the repositories owned by a team instead of having to keep that list up to date with the team ownership data already in GitHub. The most important changes include updating the README.md to reflect the new TEAM_NAME parameter, modifying the env.py and evergreen.py files to handle the new parameter, and adding tests in test_env.py to ensure the new functionality works as expected.

Proposed Changes

Documentation Updates:

• README.md: Added TEAM_NAME parameter to describe how to configure the action for a specific team within an organization. [1] [2] [3]

Code Enhancements:

• env.py: Updated get_env_vars function to include team_name parameter and added validation to ensure TEAM_NAME is not used with ORGANIZATION or REPOSITORY. [1] [2] [3] [4]
• evergreen.py: Modified the main function and get_repos_iterator to handle repositories based on the TEAM_NAME parameter. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Testing:

• test_env.py: Added new tests to verify the correct behavior when TEAM_NAME is set and to ensure errors are raised when TEAM_NAME is used without ORGANIZATION or with REPOSITORY. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Readiness Checklist

Author/Contributor

• If documentation is needed for this change, has that been included in this pull request
• run make lint and fix any issues that you have introduced
• run make test and ensure you have test coverage for the lines you are introducing
• If publishing new data to the public (scorecards, security scan results, code quality results, live dashboards, etc.), please request review from @jeffrey-luszcz

Reviewer

• Label as either fix, documentation, enhancement, infrastructure, maintenance or breaking

[jmeridth]

I thought organization was required when using TEAM_NAME?

Also maybe add check if TEAM-NAME is used then ORGANIZATION is also set?

[zkoppert]

Good catch! I totally got that messed up on the wording. Fixing...

I originally had in here to check if TEAM-NAME is used then ORGANIZATION is also set but the code was unreachable because we already check for ORGANIZATION or REPOSITORY, and then for TEAM_NAME and not REPOSITORY, so by deduction we've confirmed ORGANIZATION is present. By unreachable code, I mean to say I couldn't write a test that hit it because of the check for org first. If you think I should rewrite the order of the checks so its clear that case is covered, I'm happy to do that. At the time I just elected to remove unreachable code but that isn't as readable/clear.

[jmeridth]

That's a good point re: unreachable code. I'm a fan of explicit over implicit. Not a blocker though.