@zyfy29 - just FYI: #3781 should fix the lint/test failures.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.50%. Comparing base (d94f5c9) to head (bab5e6d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3780   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.50%   91.50%           
=======================================
  Files         190      190           
  Lines       17007    17019   +12     
=======================================
+ Hits        15562    15574   +12     
  Misses       1257     1257           
  Partials      188      188           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@zyfy29 - This PR is going to be extremely tricky. I'm looking just at the very first example in github/actions_hosted_runners.go, and am noticing that in lines 109-128, the validation function goes to great lengths to ensure that required fields are not missing, which makes me think that the correct fix for this struct is to actually REMOVE the omitempty on all the required fields (and NOT change the values to pointers).

In fact, the more that I think about this, the more I remember a large number of bug reports in this repo have involved either the inclusion or lack of inclusion of the omitempty field, along with whether the field was a pointer or a value.

I'm seriously thinking (now that I've seen the wide-sweeping changes for this linter) that we may not want this linter at all because each and every case is so closely tied to how it behaves and interacts with the respective GitHub endpoints. I'm concerned that this one PR is going to cause a great deal of breakages.

Thoughts?

Yes, it may break a lot of methods. The violations are far more than what I thought before since I just made a incomplete search. Let me think carefully tomorrow.