Fix repo rules bypass settings

[o-sama]

This PR reconciles library with GitHub API for the following regarding repo rulesets:

• BypassMode should be part of BypassActor.
• ActorType possible values documentation updated to match API docs.
• `BypassMode possible values documentation updated to match API docs.
• Ruleset ID field changed to Int64 pointer and added omitempty to allow for nil, ruleset ID is unknown prior to creation and is not required when sending a POST request to create ruleset.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2831 (889737e) into master (bedd4e3) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 889737e differs from pull request most recent head cb37562. Consider uploading reports for the commit cb37562 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2831      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.06%   98.06%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         137      137              
  Lines       12289    12287       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        12051    12049       -2     
  Misses        162      162              
  Partials       76       76              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
github/repos_rules.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

[gmlewis]

Thank you @o-sama !
LGTM.

@liaodaniel - could you please look at these breaking API changes since you are the original author of this section of code and make sure you are happy with them?

[o-sama]

It seems the breaking change was introduced by GitHub (point 2 here): https://github.blog/changelog/2023-06-27-repository-rules-public-beta-updates/

The latest change in master added a couple of test cases related to organization rulesets which used Int64 as opposed to pointers in ruleset ID, this was the case prior to the change I’m proposing here so I fixed that in the latest commit.

[liaodaniel]

Thank you @o-sama ! LGTM.

@liaodaniel - could you please look at these breaking API changes since you are the original author of this section of code and make sure you are happy with them?

Yep, this looks good from my end. Part of me felt that I probably should have waited a bit until the feature was out of beta before introducing it but the feature seemed too compelling to wait 😄

[liaodaniel]

LGTM

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @liaodaniel !
Merging.