feat: Add remaining Projects v2 endpoints by JamBalaya56562 · Pull Request #4319 · google/go-github

JamBalaya56562 · 2026-06-22T06:10:44Z

Summary

ProjectsService already covers projects (get/list), fields (get/list), and items (full CRUD). Comparing the current code against openapi_operations.yaml, eight Projects v2 REST operations were present in the spec but not yet implemented. This PR adds them, completing the Projects v2 REST surface:

Group	Organization	User
Create draft item	`CreateOrganizationProjectDraftItem`	`CreateUserProjectDraftItem`
Add field	`AddOrganizationProjectField`	`AddUserProjectField`
Create view	`CreateOrganizationProjectView`	`CreateUserProjectView`
List view items	`ListOrganizationProjectViewItems`	`ListUserProjectViewItems`

Notes

Reuse: drafts and view items return ProjectV2Item; fields return ProjectV2Field; view items use the existing ListProjectItemsOptions (before/after cursor pagination). New types: ProjectV2View plus CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest, AddProjectV2FieldRequest, CreateProjectV2ViewRequest (and the single_select/iteration field helper types). Request bodies are passed by value with a Request suffix, per the paramcheck convention.
User path quirk (mirrors the upstream spec): the user-owned draft and view create endpoints identify the user by the numeric user_id in the path (POST /user/{user_id}/projectsV2/{project_number}/drafts and POST /users/{user_id}/projectsV2/{project_number}/views), unlike the username-based paths used by the other user endpoints. These methods therefore take a userID int64, consistent with Users.GetByID.
No changes to openapi_operations.yaml (the operations were already present); generated accessors/iterators were regenerated via script/generate.sh.

Testing

Added success + error-path tests for all eight methods (including a single_select field, an iteration field, and view-item pagination). go test -race ./github/, go vet, go generate ./... --check, and golangci-lint all pass.

codecov · 2026-06-22T11:53:37Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.50%. Comparing base (2801b4b) to head (10bea9e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4319      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.48%   97.50%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         193      193              
  Lines       19400    19542     +142     
==========================================
+ Hits        18912    19054     +142     
  Misses        270      270              
  Partials      218      218

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

gmlewis

Thank you, @JamBalaya56562!

gmlewis

Thank you, @JamBalaya56562!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

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

stevehipwell

I think we need to fix the struct types to not use pointers for required fields. I've commented on the first one.

stevehipwell · 2026-06-22T13:17:42Z

+// CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest specifies the parameters to create a draft item in a project.
+type CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest struct {
+	// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create. (Required.)
+	Title *string `json:"title,omitempty"`


Suggested change

Title *string `json:"title,omitempty"`

Title string `json:"title"`

As title is required it shouldn't be a pointer.

Done — thanks! Made the required request fields non-pointer values (and dropped omitempty): CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest.Title, CreateProjectV2ViewRequest.Name/Layout (all in the OpenAPI required arrays), plus ProjectV2FieldSingleSelectOption.Name (an option's required display label). I kept AddProjectV2FieldRequest all-pointer since its body is a oneOf where fields are only conditionally required, and left the optional/response fields as-is. e5df91b

stevehipwell

There still appear to be fields which are required in the responses that are being defined as pointers (e.g. many of the view fields).

alexandear · 2026-06-22T16:24:45Z

Please use cmp.Diff, cmp.Equal, testJSONMarshal to simplify tests.

Good call — switched the new draft/field/view/view-item tests to cmp.Diff(want, got) against a fully-populated want (which now also checks every decoded field) in 365ebfb.

JamBalaya56562 · 2026-06-22T22:33:48Z

@stevehipwell thanks. I've kept the response types pointer-based on purpose, to stay consistent with go-github's convention: response structs use *T + omitempty for every field, even ones that are always present. That's what the Repository example in CONTRIBUTING.md shows (ID *int64, NodeID *string, Owner *User), what the sibling ProjectV2/ProjectV2DraftIssue/ProjectV2FieldOption in this file do, and what User, Repository, etc. do throughout the package. The value-for-required convention applies to request bodies, which I've updated (Title, Name/Layout, single-select option Name). Making only ProjectV2View use value types would make it inconsistent with ProjectV2 right beside it. Happy to switch if you'd prefer to change the response convention package-wide, but that feels like a separate change beyond this PR.

PR google#4315 (google#4301) and google#4318 (google#2113) were merged; PR google#4316 (google#3220) was closed unmerged after maintainers decided the rate-limit sleep callback belongs in the external gofri/go-github-ratelimit middleware. google#4319 (google#3715, projects v2) remains open and under review.

stevehipwell · 2026-06-23T12:22:09Z

@JamBalaya56562 I think the current required pattern is to only use pointer types for optional fields. See #4202 (closed) where the consensus from the maintainer/reviewers was that required response body fields should be non-pointer types.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T11:51:52Z

+
+// CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest specifies the parameters to create a draft item in a project.
+type CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest struct {
+	// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create. (Required.)


Suggested change

// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create. (Required.)

// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create.

Done in 2aee530.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T11:52:01Z

+type CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest struct {
+	// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create. (Required.)
+	Title string `json:"title"`
+	// Body is the body content of the draft issue item to create. (Optional.)


Suggested change

// Body is the body content of the draft issue item to create. (Optional.)

// Body is the body content of the draft issue item to create.

Done in 2aee530.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:29:22Z

+
+// ProjectV2FieldSingleSelectOption represents an option to create for a single_select project field.
+type ProjectV2FieldSingleSelectOption struct {
+	// Name is the display name of the option. (Required.)


Suggested change

// Name is the display name of the option. (Required.)

// Name is the display name of the option.

Done in 2aee530.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:43:49Z

+		return err
+	}
+	if len(tuple) != 2 {
+		return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: expected a [field_id, direction] tuple, got %v elements", len(tuple))


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: expected a [field_id, direction] tuple, got %v elements", len(tuple))

return fmt.Errorf("expected a [field_id, direction] tuple, got %v elements", len(tuple))

Done in bcc07a6.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:44:09Z

+		// The OpenAPI schema allows the field_id to be a string as well.
+		var str string
+		if err2 := json.Unmarshal(tuple[0], &str); err2 != nil {
+			return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id: %w", err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id: %w", err)

return fmt.Errorf("invalid field_id: %w", err2)

Done in bcc07a6 — also switched to wrap err2 (the actual string-parse error) here, thanks for catching that.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:44:19Z

+		}
+		fieldID, err = strconv.ParseInt(str, 10, 64)
+		if err != nil {
+			return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id %q: %w", str, err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id %q: %w", str, err)

return fmt.Errorf("invalid field_id %q: %w", str, err)

Done in bcc07a6.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:44:28Z

+
+	var direction string
+	if err := json.Unmarshal(tuple[1], &direction); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid direction: %w", err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid direction: %w", err)

return fmt.Errorf("invalid direction: %w", err)

Done in bcc07a6.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:44:47Z

+type CreateProjectV2ViewRequest struct {
+	// Name is the view's display name. (Required.)
+	Name string `json:"name"`
+	// Layout is the view's layout. One of: table, board, roadmap. (Required.)


Suggested change

// Layout is the view's layout. One of: table, board, roadmap. (Required.)

// Layout is the view's layout. One of: table, board, roadmap.

Done in bcc07a6.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:44:52Z

+
+// CreateProjectV2ViewRequest specifies the parameters to create a project view.
+type CreateProjectV2ViewRequest struct {
+	// Name is the view's display name. (Required.)


Suggested change

// Name is the view's display name. (Required.)

// Name is the view's display name.

Done in bcc07a6.

JamBalaya56562 · 2026-06-23T12:47:15Z

Thanks @stevehipwell, and apologies for pushing back earlier — you're right. I checked #4202 and the consensus there is indeed that required response fields should be non-pointer (the merged CONTRIBUTING.md hasn't caught up yet, which is what threw me off). I've made ProjectV2View's required scalar fields non-pointer (id, number, name, layout, node_id, project_url, html_url) in 5044ba0, keeping the optional filter, the nested creator, the timestamps and the slice fields as-is. Let me know if you'd like me to extend it to creator/timestamps too.

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:52:43Z

+// object, so it has custom JSON (un)marshaling.
+type ProjectV2ViewSortBy struct {
+	// FieldID is the ID of the field to sort by.
+	FieldID *int64


Maybe it makes sense:

Suggested change

FieldID *int64

FieldID *int64 `json:"-"`

Done — added json:"-" to FieldID and Direction since they're handled by the custom Marshal/UnmarshalJSON. 362c31a

alexandear · 2026-06-23T12:55:32Z

+	ID         int64   `json:"id"`
+	Number     int     `json:"number"`
+	Name       string  `json:"name"`
+	Layout     string  `json:"layout"`
+	NodeID     string  `json:"node_id"`
+	ProjectURL string  `json:"project_url"`
+	HTMLURL    string  `json:"html_url"`
+	Creator    *User   `json:"creator,omitempty"`
+	Filter     *string `json:"filter,omitempty"`


Why are these fields without comments and the rest with?

Good point — I removed the per-field comments to make ProjectV2View consistent (matching the sibling ProjectV2, which has none). Happy to add a comment to every field instead if you'd prefer. 362c31a

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra · 2026-06-23T15:23:51Z

+}
+
+// ProjectV2View represents a view in a project.
+type ProjectV2View struct {


"required": [ "id", "number", "name", "layout", "node_id", "project_url", "html_url", "creator", "created_at", "updated_at", "visible_fields", "sort_by", "group_by", "vertical_group_by" ]

These fields are required we do not use omitempty and pointer with them.
Still some required field use omitempty like group_by, vertical_group_by etc. (As said in comment)

Done — in ProjectV2View the remaining required fields (creator, created_at, updated_at, visible_fields, sort_by, group_by, vertical_group_by) are now non-pointer values without omitempty, matching the convention that only optional fields are pointers. The only field left as a pointer is filter, which is optional. Accessors were regenerated accordingly. 10bea9e

(The branch was also rebased onto the latest master to clear the merge conflict, hence the force-push.)

Add the eight Projects v2 REST endpoints that were present in the OpenAPI description but not yet implemented, completing the ProjectsService surface: - Create draft item (organization and user owned projects) - Add field (organization and user owned projects) - Create view (organization and user owned projects) - List items for a project view (organization and user owned projects) Drafts and view items reuse ProjectV2Item, fields reuse ProjectV2Field, and a new ProjectV2View type plus request types for the create/add operations are added. Request bodies are passed by value with a Request suffix per the paramcheck convention. Note the user-owned draft and view endpoints identify the user by the numeric user_id in the path (/user/{user_id}/... and /users/{user_id}/...), mirroring the upstream REST API, unlike the username-based paths used by the other user endpoints. Fixes google#3715

Add subtests for the non-array, unsupported and non-numeric string field_id, and non-string direction branches of ProjectV2ViewSortBy.UnmarshalJSON, bringing the method (and MarshalJSON) to 100% coverage.

Per review, required request-body fields should not be pointers. The OpenAPI required arrays mark title (draft create) and name/layout (view create) as required, and a single-select option's name is its required display label, so make those non-pointer values without omitempty. AddProjectV2FieldRequest stays all-pointer because its fields are required only conditionally (the body is a oneOf), as do the optional fields and the response types.

Replace the hand-written field-by-field assertions in the new draft, field, view and view-item method tests with a single cmp.Diff against a fully-populated want struct, which also verifies every decoded field.

Per review (the consensus from google#4202 that required response fields should be non-pointer), make ProjectV2View's required scalar fields non-pointer: id, number, name, layout, node_id, project_url and html_url. Optional (filter), nested struct (creator), timestamp and slice fields keep their existing pointer/slice forms.

Per review, drop the redundant "ProjectV2ViewSortBy: " prefix from the UnmarshalJSON error messages (and wrap err2, the actual string-parse error, in that branch), and remove the "(Required.)" notes from the CreateProjectV2ViewRequest Name and Layout field comments.

Per review, drop the inconsistent per-field comments from ProjectV2View so the struct matches the sibling ProjectV2 (no per-field comments), and add an explicit json:"-" tag to ProjectV2ViewSortBy's FieldID and Direction fields, which are (de)serialized through custom MarshalJSON / UnmarshalJSON rather than struct tags.

Per review, remove the parenthetical (Required.)/(Optional.) annotations from CreateProjectV2DraftItemRequest.Title/Body and the single-select option Name comments; the value/pointer type already conveys this. The conditional notes on AddProjectV2FieldRequest (required for single_select / iteration) are kept since they describe the one-of constraint.

Per the OpenAPI schema, creator, created_at, updated_at, visible_fields, sort_by, group_by and vertical_group_by are required on the project view response, so they should be non-pointer values without omitempty (matching the convention that only optional fields are pointers). The scalar fields were already converted; this does the same for the object, timestamp and slice fields. Filter stays a pointer as it is optional. Accessors are regenerated accordingly.

alexandear · 2026-06-24T08:45:54Z

+	})
+}
+
+func TestProjectV2ViewSortBy_UnmarshalJSON(t *testing.T) {


Please refactor this test in the same way as in #4323

Done in ac5bf32 — the success case now uses testJSONUnmarshalOnly like #4323. The error-case subtests stay manual since the helper expects a successful unmarshal.

Use the testJSONUnmarshalOnly helper for the success case of TestProjectV2ViewSortBy_UnmarshalJSON instead of unmarshaling by hand and asserting field by field, matching the style introduced in google#4323. The error-case subtests stay manual since the helper expects a successful unmarshal.

JamBalaya56562 force-pushed the feat/3715-projects-v2-remaining branch from 2d1843a to 10b097f Compare June 22, 2026 07:23

gmlewis added the NeedsReview PR is awaiting a review before merging. label Jun 22, 2026

gmlewis requested changes Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread github/projects.go Outdated

Comment thread github/projects.go

gmlewis approved these changes Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

stevehipwell suggested changes Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

alexandear reviewed Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

JamBalaya56562 requested review from alexandear and stevehipwell June 22, 2026 22:43

alexandear reviewed Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

JamBalaya56562 requested a review from alexandear June 23, 2026 13:12

stevehipwell mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2026

Before contributing AI slop PRs to this repo... #3939

Open

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra reviewed Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

JamBalaya56562 added 9 commits June 24, 2026 00:43

test: Cover ProjectV2ViewSortBy unmarshal errors

d4f3a94

Add subtests for the non-array, unsupported and non-numeric string field_id, and non-string direction branches of ProjectV2ViewSortBy.UnmarshalJSON, bringing the method (and MarshalJSON) to 100% coverage.

test: Simplify Projects v2 tests with cmp.Diff

1dff802

Replace the hand-written field-by-field assertions in the new draft, field, view and view-item method tests with a single cmp.Diff against a fully-populated want struct, which also verifies every decoded field.

JamBalaya56562 force-pushed the feat/3715-projects-v2-remaining branch from 2aee530 to 10bea9e Compare June 24, 2026 00:53

JamBalaya56562 requested a review from Not-Dhananjay-Mishra June 24, 2026 01:03

alexandear reviewed Jun 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

JamBalaya56562 requested a review from alexandear June 24, 2026 09:22

	Title *string `json:"title,omitempty"`
	Title string `json:"title"`

	// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create. (Required.)
	// Title is the title of the draft issue item to create.

	// Body is the body content of the draft issue item to create. (Optional.)
	// Body is the body content of the draft issue item to create.

	// Name is the display name of the option. (Required.)
	// Name is the display name of the option.

	return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: expected a [field_id, direction] tuple, got %v elements", len(tuple))
	return fmt.Errorf("expected a [field_id, direction] tuple, got %v elements", len(tuple))

	return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id: %w", err)
	return fmt.Errorf("invalid field_id: %w", err2)

	return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid field_id %q: %w", str, err)
	return fmt.Errorf("invalid field_id %q: %w", str, err)

	return fmt.Errorf("ProjectV2ViewSortBy: invalid direction: %w", err)
	return fmt.Errorf("invalid direction: %w", err)

	// Layout is the view's layout. One of: table, board, roadmap. (Required.)
	// Layout is the view's layout. One of: table, board, roadmap.

	// Name is the view's display name. (Required.)
	// Name is the view's display name.

Conversation

JamBalaya56562 commented Jun 22, 2026

Summary

Notes

Testing

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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!

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!

JamBalaya56562 commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

stevehipwell commented Jun 23, 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!

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!

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!

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!

JamBalaya56562 commented Jun 23, 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!

codecov Bot commented Jun 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading