feat: Add GitHub two new Secret Scanning API endpoints #3687
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3687 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.11% 91.12% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 187 187
Lines 16702 16728 +26
==========================================
+ Hits 15218 15244 +26
Misses 1296 1296
Partials 188 188 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@alexandear Thanks for the suggestions. I have changed the method names. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra.
This is a good start. Please address the findings and then we should be ready for a second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.
|
Thanks @gmlewis for the feedback! I have fixed all the findings. Sorry for the extra back and forth code review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.
|
Just FYI - suddenly I have lost write access to this repo, like in #3689... so I can no longer approve the workflows and need to find out what is going on... this may take some time to resolve... I apologize for the inconvenience. |
|
@alexandear - do you now approve this PR for merging? |
| // CustomPatternScan represents a scan with an associated custom pattern. | ||
| type CustomPatternScan struct { | ||
| SecretsScan | ||
| PatternSlug *string `json:"pattern_slug,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you check whether the GitHub API returns pattern_slug or pattern_name?
The documentation is confusing:
The information in the example and the response differs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it return pattern_slug
github/secret_scanning_test.go
Outdated
| startAt1 := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 9, 55, 0, 0, time.UTC)} | ||
| completeAt1 := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 10, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)} | ||
| startAt2 := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 9, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we think of better names for these variables?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
incrementalScanStartAt := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 9, 55, 0, 0, time.UTC)} incrementalScancompleteAt := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 10, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)} customPatternBackfillScanStartedAt := Timestamp{time.Date(2025, time.July, 29, 9, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)}
What do you think of these?
|
@alexandear i have done some changes can u please check them. |
This PR adds support for two new Secret Scanning API endpoints that are currently missing from the
go-githublibraryImplement
POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/secret-scanning/push-protection-bypassesGET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/secret-scanning/scan-historyChanges
CreatePushProtectionBypassmethodGetScanHistorymethodPushProtectionBypassesmethod -PushProtectionBypassRequestandPushProtectionBypassScanHistorymethod -Scan,CustomPatternScanandSecretScanningResponseIssue - #3686