fix: Handle string-typed reviewer ID in Ruleset API responses

[mmelodyRTR]

Summary

This PR addresses a JSON unmarshaling error in RulesetReviewer.ID when interacting with the GitHub Repository Ruleset API.

While the GitHub API documentation specifies that the reviewer ID should be an integer, the API currently returns these IDs as quoted strings (e.g., "id": "123456"). This causes the standard Go JSON decoder to fail when unmarshaling into the *int64 field.

Related Issues

This issue was identified via the GitHub Terraform Provider: integrations/terraform-provider-github/issues/3214

Changes

• Implemented a custom UnmarshalJSON for RulesetReviewer in github/rules.go.
• The unmarshaler robustly handles both numeric (float64) and string-quoted IDs, ensuring compatibility with both the documented and actual API behavior.
• Maintained the *int64 type for RulesetReviewer.ID to preserve consistency with the rest of the library and avoid breaking changes for existing users.
• Added a regression test case to TestRepositoryRule and a new comprehensive unit test suite TestRulesetReviewer_UnmarshalJSON in github/rules_test.go.

Verification

• Verified the API behavior using gh api against a live repository.
• Ran all tests in github/rules_test.go, which now pass with the fix.

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[mmelodyRTR]

Full disclosure: I'm not a go developer and have used agentic ai/coding to drive this implementation. Will take any feedback on board in an effort to provide a proper go solution in line with repository standards

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 89.47368% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 93.69%. Comparing base (9fbf4be) to head (23f5d8a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
github/rules.go	89.47%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4178      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.69%   93.69%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         210      210              
  Lines       19741    19760      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits        18497    18514      +17     
- Misses       1048     1049       +1     
- Partials      196      197       +1     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @mmelodyRTR!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

cc: @stevehipwell - @alexandear - @zyfy29 - @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra - @munlicode

[gmlewis]

@mmelodyRTR - if you want to make the PR even better, Codecov is reporting that the following line is not covered by a unit test. You could ask the agent to see if it can come up with a unit test that would cover the failure on line 498:

[mmelodyRTR]

Thanks for the feedback @gmlewis - added a test case as requested 🫡

[Not-Dhananjay-Mishra]

LGTM

[Not-Dhananjay-Mishra]

Suggested change

	},
	}
	},
	{
	name: "invalid_type",
	json: `{"id": 123456, "type": 123456}`,
	wantErr: true,
	},
	}

This test case might cover those lines.

[gmlewis]

Codecov still claims it is not covered, but that's OK. We can proceed anyway.

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @mmelodyRTR and @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra!

[mmelodyRTR]

Thanks folks :)