Private repos support

[matipan]

Signed-off-by: Matias Pan matias.pan26@gmail.com

This PR adds support for private repositories. To support this we had to change the way we were fetching the .DEREK.yml config file, if the repo is private we use GitHub's API, if it's not then we default to the CDN.

Description

In order to support fetching files from repositories that are private a new function was added called GetPrivateRepoConfig. This function uses GitHub's API to download the file instead of download it from the CDN. I thought it would be best to introduce a new function instead of rewriting the current one and changing its signature. This is because I wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking any existing functionality.

Motivation and Context

• [x] I have raised an issue to propose this change (required)

How Has This Been Tested?

I built derek at matipan/derek:privateRepos, deployed it on my personal cluster and tested it using a private repository: matipan/test-derek-private. (Request for access if you'd like to test it yourself :smile: ) Derek in action: Event for pull requests:

Event for issue comments:

Types of changes

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the code style of this project.
• [x] My change requires a change to the documentation.
• [x] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [x] I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
• [x] I have signed-off my commits with git commit -s
• [ ] I have added tests to cover my changes.
• [x] All new and existing tests passed.

[alexellis]

cc @boyney123

[matipan]

This repo can be used to test that this changes are not breaking the existing functionality with public repositories: https://github.com/matipan/test-derek

[alexellis]

Possibly but I'm a fan of iteration. This is almost complete but I think we should use the SDK to grab the file.

[matipan]

@alexellis the code was already updated to use the SDK instead :+1: Good point @rgee0, @alexellis do you want to leave that change for the future or should I add it to this PR?