Confirm whether governance finding types should be shared
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100
Research direction
Start by comparing the upstream AdCP schema definitions for audit-log findings, check_governance findings, and outcome findings; the issue does not name schema or generator files. Confirm whether the shapes are intended to be structurally identical. If shared, update the upstream schema before consolidating Go generation; if distinct, retain PlanAuditFinding and document the reason in generator comments or baseline docs.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Context
#305 generated a dedicated PlanAuditFinding type for get_plan_audit_logs entries. The SDK now has three related governance finding shapes:
CheckGovernanceFindingReportPlanOutcomeFindingPlanAuditFinding
The audit-log schema says audit entry findings use the same structure as check_governance response findings, but the current JSON schema still defines an inline object rather than $refing a shared subschema.
Follow-up
Check upstream schema intent. If the audit-log finding schema should be shared, update the upstream AdCP schema to $ref the shared finding shape and then consolidate Go generation to reuse one type where appropriate. If the shapes are intentionally distinct, leave the split types and document why.
Acceptance
- Confirm whether audit-log findings are intended to be structurally identical to check/outcome findings.
- If shared, make the schema shared first; do not invent SDK-only type aliases that hide schema divergence.
- If distinct, keep
PlanAuditFindingseparate and document the reason in generator comments or baseline docs.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 2
- Avg merge
- 1d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 14
Getting set up
This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from adcontextprotocol/adcp-go
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
adcontextprotocol/adcp-go#567 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
adcontextprotocol/adcp-go#562 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 22/100
adcontextprotocol/adcp-go#564 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 8/100
adcontextprotocol/adcp-go#556 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
claude-triaged cross-repo
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
adcontextprotocol/adcp-go#548 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in adcontextprotocol/adcp-go
Similar issues
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 Half a day Newbie friendliness 72/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
kind/bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 62/100
kubernetes-sigs/external-dns#6816 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
ANSI translator ignores SGR 22/24 (and other attribute-off codes): bold and underline never turn offOpen
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
-
Named Tuple element with a space in its name fails to parsePossibly taken @spicysharkco claimed this today. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
ClickHouse/clickhouse-go#2073 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day