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

[iamstarkov]

examples on GitHub api documentation use octokit as an octokit instance, so does the octokit 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 docs
await octokit.request('GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/{commit_sha}/pulls', {
  owner: 'OWNER',
  repo: 'REPO',
  commit_sha: 'COMMIT_SHA',
})

// octokit documentation
octokit.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

[joshmgross]

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

[iamstarkov]

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?

[joshmgross]

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

[iamstarkov]

@joshmgross absolutely

[iamstarkov]

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

[iamstarkov]

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

[iamstarkov]

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

GitHub assigned this PR to a team without assigning anyone.

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

[joshmgross]

@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.

[iamstarkov]

how does the release process look like for this action? I noticed 41 unreleased commits since last release