Codestin Search App

AbhishekAg · 2026-02-18T16:37:17Z

Implement support for listing requests to access organization resources via fine-grained personal access tokens (GET /orgs/{org}/personal-access-token-requests).

Add FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests struct for request details
(id, reason, owner, repository selection, permissions, timestamps, token info)
Add ListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions with TokenID filter and embedded
ListFineGrainedPATOptions (sort, direction, owner, repository, permission, last_used_before/after, pagination)
Add OrganizationsService.ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests
Add addListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions helper for owner[] and token_id[] query parameters

API docs: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/orgs/personal-access-tokens#list-requests-to-access-organization-resources-with-fine-grained-personal-access-tokens

Fixes: #4021

…sting Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

codecov · 2026-02-18T16:58:26Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.07%. Comparing base (a2d86b0) to head (d109c37).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4022      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.04%   94.07%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         207      207              
  Lines       19206    19262      +56     
==========================================
+ Hits        18063    18121      +58     
+ Misses        940      939       -1     
+ Partials      203      202       -1

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

AbhishekAg · 2026-02-19T03:39:11Z

@gmlewis Can you please re-run the pipeline? linter error is due to 503

validating openapi_operations.yaml
unexpected status code: 503 Service Unavailable
failed validating openapi_operations.yaml
validating generated files

gmlewis

Thank you, @AbhishekAg!
Once you add omitempty to the pointer fields in FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests then I think we should be ready for a second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

cc: @stevehipwell - @alexandear - @zyfy29 - @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

AbhishekAg · 2026-02-20T04:19:48Z

Thank you, @AbhishekAg! Once you add omitempty to the pointer fields in FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests then I think we should be ready for a second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

cc: @stevehipwell - @alexandear - @zyfy29 - @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra

Done.

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

stevehipwell

I may be missing something but to me the struct pattern doesn't look right/consistent?

stevehipwell · 2026-02-20T11:00:53Z

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

 }

+// FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest represents the details of a request to access organization resources via a fine-grained personal access token.
+type FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest struct {


The response schema for this endpoint has all of the struct fields as required so is there a reason we're using pointers?

@stevehipwell - @alexandear pointed this out above, and I reminded everyone about our README.md which says that for responses representing GitHub resources, we use pointers and omitempty so that as users we can tell when GitHub does not send a field. Because historically, GitHub will sometimes send fields and sometimes not send fields in a response.

So @AbhishekAg originally had values without omitempty and I asked him to change them to pointers and omitempty because this is a returned response from GitHub representing a GitHub resource. This is how we treat the rest of the repo and I feel we should be consistent.

Thoughts?

I think all fields are not mandatory. Example: reason may be null when no reason is provided while requesting for fine grained PAT.
That's why we have added omitempty in every field

According to the response schema, all fields are mandatory:

"required": [ "id", "reason", "owner", "repository_selection", "repositories_url", "permissions", "created_at", "token_id", "token_name", "token_expired", "token_expires_at", "token_last_used_at" ] } }

As I recall, we try to strictly follow the schema, and sometimes, if there are reported bugs, we can work around them using omitempty. If GitHub doesn’t send some fields, that’s a mistake on GitHub’s side.

I agree with @stevehipwell and suggest removing omitempty and pointers from all fields.

AbhishekAg · 2026-02-20T12:17:20Z

Pipeline failure due to

--- FAIL: TestRepositoriesService_RemoveCollaborator_invalidUser (0.00s)
    testing.go:1712: race detected during execution of test
--- FAIL: TestRepositoriesService_UploadReleaseAssetFromRelease_AbsoluteTemplate (0.04s)
    testing.go:1712: race detected during execution of test

gmlewis · 2026-02-20T12:29:03Z

Pipeline failure due to

--- FAIL: TestRepositoriesService_RemoveCollaborator_invalidUser (0.00s)
    testing.go:1712: race detected during execution of test
--- FAIL: TestRepositoriesService_UploadReleaseAssetFromRelease_AbsoluteTemplate (0.04s)
    testing.go:1712: race detected during execution of test

Unfortunately, we appear to be having some flaky tests, which @alexandear also noticed and filed an issue: #3987.

I'm not sure at what point this started getting flaky, but it feels like it is pretty recent.

I reran the failed job.

alexandear · 2026-02-20T11:16:03Z

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

+	}
+
+	var pats []*FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest
+


Let's remove this empty line:

Suggested change

alexandear · 2026-02-20T15:00:57Z

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

 }

+// FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest represents the details of a request to access organization resources via a fine-grained personal access token.
+type FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest struct {


According to the response schema, all fields are mandatory:

"required": [ "id", "reason", "owner", "repository_selection", "repositories_url", "permissions", "created_at", "token_id", "token_name", "token_expired", "token_expires_at", "token_last_used_at" ] } }

As I recall, we try to strictly follow the schema, and sometimes, if there are reported bugs, we can work around them using omitempty. If GitHub doesn’t send some fields, that’s a mistake on GitHub’s side.

I agree with @stevehipwell and suggest removing omitempty and pointers from all fields.

alexandear · 2026-02-20T15:08:27Z

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

+// GitHub API docs: https://docs.github.com/rest/orgs/personal-access-tokens#list-requests-to-access-organization-resources-with-fine-grained-personal-access-tokens
+//
+//meta:operation GET /orgs/{org}/personal-access-token-requests
+func (s *OrganizationsService) ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests(ctx context.Context, org string, opts *ListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions) ([]*FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest, *Response, error) {


options name = method name + "Options" suffix

s is missing:

Suggested change

func (s *OrganizationsService) ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests(ctx context.Context, org string, opts *ListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions) ([]*FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest, *Response, error) {

func (s *OrganizationsService) ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests(ctx context.Context, org string, opts *ListFineGrainedPATRequestsOptions) ([]*FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest, *Response, error) {

alexandear · 2026-02-20T15:16:58Z

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go

+	// TokenID filters results by the given fine-grained personal access token IDs.
+	TokenID []int64 `url:"-"`
+
+	ListFineGrainedPATOptions


ListFineGrainedPATOptions also contains TokenID: according to the doc
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/orgs/personal-access-tokens?apiVersion=2022-11-28#list-fine-grained-personal-access-tokens-with-access-to-organization-resources

So, let's add TokenID to the ListFineGrainedPATOptions, update addListFineGrainedPATOptions, and use ListFineGrainedPATOptions here instead of ListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions.

alexandear

By the way, did you check ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests by calling it on a real organization instead of using mocked data?

gmlewis · 2026-02-20T15:26:20Z

If GitHub doesn’t send some fields, that’s a mistake on GitHub’s side.

Yes, and over the last 10+ years, we've seen that a fair amount... mostly in the early days (hence the stance in our README.md).
Granted that GitHub was not even providing response schemas in the early days.

OK, so your argument is that now that GitHub IS providing response schemas, and we are building a new endpoint based upon that schema, that we should initially attempt to honor it and fix bugs as they occur.

I totally understand that argument.

As a maintainer, we wish that everything could be 100% consistent and cut-and-dry and make perfect sense.

So my next thought is... now that GitHub response schemas are prolific, do we now go back and clean up every struct this repo generates for GitHub resources and make the fields match the schemas?!?

Are we opening up an enormous can of worms?

Thoughts?

alexandear · 2026-02-20T15:40:55Z

So my next thought is... now that GitHub response schemas are prolific, do we now go back and clean up every struct this repo generates for GitHub resources and make the fields match the schemas?!?

Are we opening up an enormous can of worms?

We can do this in the future, but we need to make sure it won't break anything. So we should limit these changes to endpoints that have integration tests. Or maybe we need to add more integration tests, but it's hard for some endpoints (e.g., enterprise or org-related).

gmlewis · 2026-02-20T17:08:12Z

OK, @AbhishekAg, let's run with the recommendations from @stevehipwell and @alexandear.
I apologize for steering you in the wrong direction.

Add ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests for org PAT request li…

95029ec

…sting Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

gmlewis changed the title ~~Add ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests for org PAT request listing~~ feat: Add ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests for org PAT request listing Feb 18, 2026

gmlewis changed the title ~~feat: Add ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests for org PAT request listing~~ feat: Add ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests for org Feb 18, 2026

gmlewis added the NeedsReview PR is awaiting a review before merging. label Feb 18, 2026

alexandear reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Updated testcases to increase code coverage

f8b7572

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

AbhishekAg requested a review from alexandear February 19, 2026 12:41

gmlewis requested changes Feb 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

omitempty to the fields

907d86f

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

AbhishekAg requested a review from gmlewis February 20, 2026 04:19

stevehipwell suggested changes Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

github/orgs_personal_access_tokens.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pluralization is removed from structure

d109c37

Signed-off-by: abhishek <[email protected]>

AbhishekAg requested a review from stevehipwell February 20, 2026 10:41

stevehipwell suggested changes Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

alexandear reviewed Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

	func (s OrganizationsService) ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests(ctx context.Context, org string, opts ListFineGrainedPATRequestOptions) ([]FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest, Response, error) {
	func (s OrganizationsService) ListFineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequests(ctx context.Context, org string, opts ListFineGrainedPATRequestsOptions) ([]FineGrainedPersonalAccessTokenRequest, Response, error) {

Comments

Conversation

AbhishekAg commented Feb 18, 2026 • edited by gmlewis Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AbhishekAg commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AbhishekAg commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stevehipwell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AbhishekAg commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

gmlewis commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexandear left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gmlewis commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

alexandear commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

gmlewis commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

AbhishekAg commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited by gmlewis

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading