[MAINT] Properly enable test sweeper

[deiga]

Supersedes #3035

---

Before the change?

• Repository names in tests didn't follow a standard pattern
• Team names in tests didn't follow a standard pattern
• Repository sweeper didn't actually work

After the change?

• Repository and Team names in tests use testResourcePrefix to ensure that sweepers can be used
• Added make target for sweep

Pull request checklist

• Schema migrations have been created if needed (example)
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been reviewed and added / updated if needed (for bug fixes / features)

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Please see our docs on breaking changes to help!

• Yes
• No

---

[github-actions]

👋 Hi! Thank you for this contribution! Just to let you know, our GitHub SDK team does a round of issue and PR reviews twice a week, every Monday and Friday! We have a process in place for prioritizing and responding to your input. Because you are a part of this community please feel free to comment, add to, or pick up any issues/PRs that are labeled with Status: Up for grabs. You & others like you are the reason all of this works! So thank you & happy coding! 🚀

[stevehipwell]

Thanks for finishing this work off, I was planning on finishing it as part of the acceptance tests work before Christmas but never got round to doing all of the plumbing.

Do you have a way to catch new tests added since you last rebased from main?

[deiga]

@stevehipwell Unfortunately, I don't :/

• One option could be to create a custom linter for golangci-lint, but I don't know how involved that would be.
• Another that comes to mind, would be to create a Builder-pattern for repo and team resources, but that falls short quickly

One very simplistic check could be to run something like grep 'name\s+=\s+%s' -v *_test.go 😬

[stevehipwell]

@deiga I was really thinking about keeping the PR valid before it's merged. Once it's in the code we'll just need to be good at reviewing. Custom linters are powerful, but the UX for contributors isn't great.

[deiga]

Ah, right. I was already thinking structural :D

[stevehipwell]

@deiga if you get this ready to merge, we could look to get it prioritised so the burden lands on the new PRs (I know this pain from the tests PR)?