feat: Add GitHub two new Secret Scanning API endpoints #3687

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra · 2025-08-18T00:51:58Z

This PR adds support for two new Secret Scanning API endpoints that are currently missing from the go-github library

Implement

POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/secret-scanning/push-protection-bypasses
GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/secret-scanning/scan-history

Changes

Add CreatePushProtectionBypass method
Add GetScanHistory method
Made two new struct for PushProtectionBypasses method - PushProtectionBypassRequest and PushProtectionBypass
Made three new struct for ScanHistory method - Scan, CustomPatternScan and SecretScanningResponse

Issue - #3686

github/secret_scanning.go

codecov · 2025-08-18T11:12:59Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.14%. Comparing base (ffc5df8) to head (3ccea73).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3687      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.12%   91.14%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         187      187              
  Lines       16640    16666      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits        15164    15190      +26     
  Misses       1291     1291              
  Partials      185      185

☔ 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.

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra · 2025-08-18T11:35:13Z

@alexandear Thanks for the suggestions. I have changed the method names. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions.

github/secret_scanning.go

gmlewis

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.

github/secret_scanning.go

github/secret_scanning_test.go

github/secret_scanning.go

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra · 2025-08-18T14:43:48Z

Thanks @gmlewis for the feedback! I have fixed all the findings. Sorry for the extra back and forth code review.

gmlewis

Thank you, @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

github/secret_scanning.go

gmlewis · 2025-08-18T17:22:30Z

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.

gmlewis · 2025-09-22T18:36:34Z

@alexandear - do you now approve this PR for merging?

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:31:51Z

github/secret_scanning.go

+	var responsePushProtectionBypass *PushProtectionBypass
+	resp, err := s.client.Do(ctx, req, &responsePushProtectionBypass)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, resp, err
+	}
+	return responsePushProtectionBypass, resp, nil


We should be consistent with the rest code in the file:

Suggested change

var responsePushProtectionBypass *PushProtectionBypass

resp, err := s.client.Do(ctx, req, &responsePushProtectionBypass)

if err != nil {

return nil, resp, err

}

return responsePushProtectionBypass, resp, nil

var pushProtectionBypass *PushProtectionBypass

resp, err := s.client.Do(ctx, req, &pushProtectionBypass)

if err != nil {

return nil, resp, err

}

return pushProtectionBypass, resp, nil

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:37:53Z

github/secret_scanning.go


+// PushProtectionBypassRequest represents the parameters for CreatePushProtectionBypass.
+type PushProtectionBypassRequest struct {
+	// Reason provides a justification for the push protection bypass.


Could we enhance the comment from GitHub's docs?

Suggested change

// Reason provides a justification for the push protection bypass.

// The reason for bypassing push protection.

// Can be one of: false_positive, used_in_tests, will_fix_later

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:40:13Z

github/secret_scanning.go

+}
+
+// SecretScanningHistory is the top-level struct for the secret scanning API response.
+type SecretScanningHistory struct {


Maybe better:

Suggested change

type SecretScanningHistory struct {

type SecretScanningScanHistory struct {

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:45:10Z

github/secret_scanning.go

+}
+
+// CustomPatternScan represents a scan with an associated custom pattern.
+type CustomPatternScan struct {


Suggested change

type CustomPatternScan struct {

type CustomPatternBackfillScan struct {

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:50:13Z

github/secret_scanning.go

+// CustomPatternScan represents a scan with an associated custom pattern.
+type CustomPatternScan struct {
+	SecretsScan
+	PatternSlug  *string `json:"pattern_slug,omitempty"`


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.

it return pattern_slug

alexandear · 2025-09-25T13:52:31Z

github/secret_scanning_test.go

+	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)}


Could we think of better names for these variables?

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?

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra added 2 commits August 18, 2025 05:47

add PushProtectionBypasses and ScanHistory in secret scanning endpoints

f97ab6d

use timestamp instead of time.Time

895f152

alexandear reviewed Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

github/secret_scanning.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

github/secret_scanning.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra added 2 commits August 18, 2025 16:58

change method names

3a24cda

fix comments

52ce83a

alexandear reviewed Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra added 3 commits August 18, 2025 18:40

add comments to struct and change some name

9908a2d

fix comments

25437f3

fix comments

317ee25

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra requested a review from alexandear August 18, 2025 13:31

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra added 3 commits August 18, 2025 19:10

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

3ba69ca

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

4aa75c6

add omitempty

6f7860e

gmlewis requested changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

gmlewis added the NeedsReview PR is awaiting a review before merging. label Aug 18, 2025

use omitempty where needed and adjust names

c7213dc

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra requested a review from gmlewis August 18, 2025 14:51

gmlewis approved these changes Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

alexandear reviewed Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

github/secret_scanning.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix responsePushProtectionBypass

1d091ff

alexandear mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2025

chore: Format code with gofumpt #3689

Merged

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

6606dd4

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra requested a review from alexandear August 19, 2025 13:05

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

399ec39

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

a4badd1

Merge branch 'master' into feat-3686

3ccea73

gmlewis added the waiting for reply label Sep 23, 2025

alexandear suggested changes Sep 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

	// Reason provides a justification for the push protection bypass.
	// The reason for bypassing push protection.
	// Can be one of: false_positive, used_in_tests, will_fix_later

	type SecretScanningHistory struct {
	type SecretScanningScanHistory struct {

	type CustomPatternScan struct {
	type CustomPatternBackfillScan struct {

feat: Add GitHub two new Secret Scanning API endpoints #3687

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: Add GitHub two new Secret Scanning API endpoints #3687

Conversation

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra commented Aug 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Implement

Changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

gmlewis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gmlewis commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

gmlewis commented Sep 22, 2025

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!

Uh oh!

Not-Dhananjay-Mishra commented Aug 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading