Add support for additional response fields

[vandanrohatgi]

The struct for parsing Secret Scanning Alerts :

go-github/github/secret_scanning.go

Lines 18 to 32 in fd33b81

	type SecretScanningAlert struct {
	Number *int `json:"number,omitempty"`
	CreatedAt *Timestamp `json:"created_at,omitempty"`
	URL *string `json:"url,omitempty"`
	HTMLURL *string `json:"html_url,omitempty"`
	LocationsURL *string `json:"locations_url,omitempty"`
	State *string `json:"state,omitempty"`
	Resolution *string `json:"resolution,omitempty"`
	ResolvedAt *Timestamp `json:"resolved_at,omitempty"`
	ResolvedBy *User `json:"resolved_by,omitempty"`
	SecretType *string `json:"secret_type,omitempty"`
	SecretTypeDisplayName *string `json:"secret_type_display_name,omitempty"`
	Secret *string `json:"secret,omitempty"`
	Repository *Repository `json:"repository,omitempty"`
	}

does not support a few fields such as :

"push_protection_bypassed_by": null,
"push_protection_bypassed": false,
"push_protection_bypassed_at": null,
"resolution_comment": null

As always happy to create a PR if this is a valid issue 😃

[WillAbides]

This looks like a valid issue to me. It's also missing updated_at according to the response schema.

[gmlewis]

Please note that our goal in this repo has never been to have complete 100% coverage of all possible fields in all possible responses, but instead to have all needed fields that users of this repo will want to use.

For the longest time, we never populated the URL or HTMLURL fields of any response until someone gave an argument for why they needed them. I still can't remember why they were needed, but now they have been added to many structs.

Anyway, I just want to make it clear to all contributors (especially our enthusiastic "hacktoberfest" participants) that it is NOT a goal of ours to create PRs to add missing fields just for the sheer fun (or points score) of it, but that they are added as they are needed. Thanks.

Also note, I'm not saying that you are making this PR for the fun of it, or to score points.
I just wanted to reiterate a guiding principal of this repo that probably got buried in some PR comment a decade 😮 ago. 😄

[vandanrohatgi]

Hey @gmlewis ! long time no see 😄 . I agree with your policy, never liked doing stuff for the sake of it.

I wanted to create this because I had some work which involved these particular fields (and it was getting tiring working with my fork of this repo 😅 )

[WillAbides]

Thanks for the reminder about coverage. I brought up updated_at despite it having questionable usefulness because I happened to be messing with the openapi descriptions when I saw this issue and decided to compare our fields with those to see if there were any others that should be added at the same time. That was probably a little over-eager.

And you reminded me that hacktoberfest is coming up. Time to get me lederhosen dry-cleaned.

[gmlewis]

@vandanrohatgi - awesome! That is the perfect reason to create a PR - thank you for doing that! 😄

@WillAbides - updated_at is indeed a useful field and I have no problems with being proactive when we are tweaking an area of code. So both of you are perfectly justified in all you did... I hope I did not come across as being critical.

It was more of a Public Service Announcement for those listening in that we don't need 3000 PRs in a couple weeks to add HTMLURL to every struct where it is missing. 😂