Add the "internal" flag to NotesApi.createIssueNote()

[hannibal218bc]

• add a new createIssueNote() method allowing to pass the internal flag.
• add the internal flag to the Note model

[jmini]

Please also add the internal flag to the example file:
https://github.com/gitlab4j/gitlab4j-api/blob/main/src/test/resources/org/gitlab4j/api/note.json
--> this should be as close as possible to a real object returned by GitLab.

This way this test make sure our model matches with the JSON example:

gitlab4j-api/src/test/java/org/gitlab4j/api/TestGitLabApiBeans.java

Lines 681 to 685 in ff037bd

	@Test
	public void testNote() throws Exception {
	Note note = unmarshalResource(Note.class, "note.json");
	assertTrue(compareJson(note, "note.json"));
	}

... and your addition is covered checked by a test.

[jmini]

@hannibal218bc thank you for this PR. Small changes are requested but the change looks almost good to me.

[hannibal218bc]

@hannibal218bc thank you for this PR. Small changes are requested but the change looks almost good to me.

@jmini thank you for the feedback. I'll submit the changes as soon I as time permits.

[hannibal218bc]

@jmini thank you for the review, I've updated the MR with the requested changes.

Please also add the internal flag to the example file: https://github.com/gitlab4j/gitlab4j-api/blob/main/src/test/resources/org/gitlab4j/api/note.json --> this should be as close as possible to a real object returned by GitLab.

I cross-checked the file against a file retrieved from a 16.4 enterprise instance, and there are a few more differences - added attachments, confidential, but author.created is missing. And a new field type that isn't even documented at Gitlab...

I guess the JSON shall only contain properties that are actually supported by Gitlab4J?

[jmini]

I guess the JSON shall only contain properties that are actually supported by Gitlab4J?

Sadly this is the long work of keeping our model aligned with the JSON returned by GitLab. Step by step we are getting closer.

I agree that the field you mention are out of scope for this pull request.

And a new field type that isn't even documented at Gitlab

This is crazy. They have also issue keeping up-to-date their doc with their code.

[jmini]

It looks good to me. I will do some manual testing before merging.

[hannibal218bc]

It looks good to me. I will do some manual testing before merging.

Thank you @jmini !