Add Org Option to issue_label

[ikegentz]

Resolves #1840

---

Before the change?

• There was no way with the github_issue_label resource to specify an Organization in which the repo you wanted to create the label for, lived

After the change?

• This adds an org attribute to the github_issue_label resource that lets the end-user explicitly specify where the repo lives they want to add the label to

Pull request checklist

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

NOTE: I updated the docs in website/docs/r/, because they matched what I see on the resource's documentation page but do I need to update something in website/docs/d/? What is that directory for?

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Nothing I'm aware of!

• Yes
• No

---

[kfcampbell]

Thanks for the contribution! I'm a little torn as to whether we want to standardize on owner instead of org here. I think it would be better to be consistent with the keywords we use at the provider level...what do you think?

[ikegentz]

Thanks for the contribution! I'm a little torn as to whether we want to standardize on owner instead of org here. I think it would be better to be consistent with the keywords we use at the provider level...what do you think?

Wow I totally forgot about this PR, sorry for the delay!

Hm, IMO the current version of the provider is confusing because an owner of a repo doesn't have to be an organization, it could be an individual too.

So on https://registry.terraform.io/providers/integrations/github/latest/docs#authentication, we have this example:

provider "github" {
  owner = var.github_organization
  app_auth {
    id              = var.app_id              # or `GITHUB_APP_ID`
    installation_id = var.app_installation_id # or `GITHUB_APP_INSTALLATION_ID`
    pem_file        = var.app_pem_file        # or `GITHUB_APP_PEM_FILE`
  }
}

specifically, owner = var.github_organization. IMO, this is currently confusing, so I suppose I like how I've got it here in this PR.

That said, perhaps there are some other implications to doing this I am not considering outside of the current context of this PR. Look forward to your thoughts on this @kfcampbell