examples on GitHubapi documentation use octokit as an octokit instance, so does theoctokit documentation itself. its kinda a bummer to always rename when you copy from documentation or from another files.

I understand that octokit was made available over the github keyword, and I dont want to break that, but it won't hurt nobody to expose octokit instance over the octokit keyword as well and it will help people who use documentation a lot

// api docsawaitoctokit.request('GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/{commit_sha}/pulls',{owner:'OWNER',repo:'REPO',commit_sha:'COMMIT_SHA',})// octokit documentationoctokit.rest.repos.listPullRequestsAssociatedWithCommit({  owner,  repo,  commit_sha,});

what do you think? if this is something you are up for adding, let me know and I adjust documentation accordingly

iamstarkov requested a review froma team as acode owner

January 15, 2025 18:22

Copy link

Contributor

joshmgross commentedJan 17, 2025

Thanks for the suggestion@iamstarkov - my one concern with this change is that users may assumeoctokitis Octokit and that could create additional confusion if something does not work as expected.

Copy link

ContributorAuthor

iamstarkov commentedJan 19, 2025•
edited
Loading

my two cents would be that I used github-scripts heavily in the last few years and I'd not make that mistake, and also I think javascript developers are grown to know the difference Class and an instance.
That is to say, your concerns are not without merit, but I dont think we should underestimate developers. If we want, we have an option to remedy this potential issue by explicitly passing Octokit class explicitly

And my last argument will be that consistency with documentation will lead to net-smaller confusion after all. What do you think?

Copy link

Contributor

joshmgross commentedJan 28, 2025

@iamstarkov I'm fine with this change - could we update the documentation as well to make it clear that this is an option?

Copy link

ContributorAuthor

iamstarkov commentedJan 31, 2025

@joshmgross absolutely

iamstarkovand others added2 commits

January 31, 2025 11:20

make octokit instance available as octokit on top of github, to make …

4024541

…it easier to seamless to copy examples from GitHub api or octokit documentation

replace GitHub with octokit in the README, but keep a note of the Git…

f23cd47

…Hub still being available

iamstarkov force-pushed thepatch-2 branch from5e88bb6 tof23cd47Compare

January 31, 2025 10:20

Copy link

ContributorAuthor

iamstarkov commentedJan 31, 2025

@joshmgross updated documentation as we agreed, feel free to take a look

fix: adjust types

6320504

Copy link

ContributorAuthor

iamstarkov commentedJan 31, 2025

checked out project locally, adjusted types and committed updated dist folder accordingly

iamstarkov changed the title~~make octokit instance available as octokit on top of github, to make it easier to seamless to copy examples from GitHub api or octokit documentation~~make octokit instance available as octokit on top of github, to make it easier to seamlessly copy examples from GitHub rest api or octokit documentations

Jan 31, 2025

Copy link

ContributorAuthor

iamstarkov commentedJan 31, 2025•
edited
Loading

I have off topic to PR question, which i'm curious about

GitHub assigned this PR toa team without assigning anyone.

isCODEOWNERS correct and@actions/actions-launch exists, but its not public?

Copy link

Contributor

joshmgross commentedFeb 4, 2025

@iamstarkov yes that is a team, that's not my area of GitHub but my understanding is that organization teams are never public and can only be internal to all organization members or hidden.