feat : Support repository property for GitHub organization ruleset by Moser-ss · Pull Request #2356 · integrations/terraform-provider-github

Moser-ss · 2024-08-20T18:46:52Z

Resolves #2137
Introduces the support to use repository_property to target repositories in the ruleset

The changes were manually tested against a GitHub Organization with an enterprise plan.
It is not possible to add properties with the source system because the lib version doesn't allow that. It is necessary to update to version v65

Before the change?

Cannot target ruleset using repository_property

After the change?

The ruleset can use the repository_property under the conditions block

Pull request checklist

Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
Docs have been reviewed and added / updated if needed (for bug fixes / features)

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Please see our docs on breaking changes to help!

Yes
No

Moser-ss · 2024-09-07T22:36:46Z

@kfcampbell, could you take a quick look to see if I need to improve anything in this PR

kfcampbell

Thanks! Have you looked at expanding the tests in github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go to cover this usecase yet?

Moser-ss · 2024-09-13T17:48:17Z

A test case was added, I hope the change was not to ugly

Moser-ss · 2024-10-05T14:15:31Z

@kfcampbell can I do anything to speed up the review of this PR?

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset.go

stevehipwell · 2024-11-05T12:08:12Z

@Moser-ss I think you need to update the docs to reflect these changes?

Moser-ss · 2024-11-09T19:07:08Z

@stevehipwell Docs updated, thanks for catching that.

wrighbr · 2024-11-14T02:04:20Z

@PaarthShah @kfcampbell Would you have an estimate on when this PR might be reviewed and merged?

PaarthShah · 2024-11-14T03:53:57Z

@PaarthShah @kfcampbell Would you have an estimate on when this PR might be reviewed and merged?

@wrighbr No idea, I'm not a maintainer 😅

alexymantha · 2024-12-16T14:48:30Z

We also need this feature. It's been stale for a little while, anything we can do to get this merged?

daniddelrio · 2024-12-30T09:34:10Z

+1 on this PR. Would be great if this can get merged soon

ChrisStatham · 2025-01-07T18:38:12Z

@kfcampbell If you have a chance to review this feature it would be appreciated thanks!

aditya-nair1 · 2025-01-07T19:01:22Z

@kfcampbell +1, thanks!

vimc9 · 2025-01-07T19:56:43Z

@kfcampbell would be grateful for your review here 🚀 🚀 🚀

tayven-bigelow · 2025-01-27T19:19:54Z

@kfcampbell - Any chance of getting a review / approval of this PR?

graham1228 · 2025-03-14T15:35:15Z

➕ 1️⃣ on getting this merged. Would love to migrate our bash scripts to TF, but need this functionality.

lfraile · 2025-04-07T06:54:40Z

+1 On desperately needing this PR to get approved :(

tayven-bigelow · 2025-04-07T19:58:49Z

@kfcampbell - Is there any chance we could get this merged?
Is there something missing or any sort of directive as to why it hasn't been approved?

stevehipwell · 2025-04-08T11:16:53Z

@tayven-bigelow check out the commit history for this repo, I don't think GitHub are providing engineering resources here at the moment.

website/docs/r/organization_ruleset.html.markdown

loksonarius · 2025-05-19T21:05:17Z

tyvm for setting up this PR, I really hope it merges in soon 🙏

Maksym-Perehinets · 2025-11-14T21:49:25Z

hi, is there any chance to get this one merged?
+1

deiga · 2025-11-18T12:36:42Z

Hey there 👋

We're looking into getting this into a mergeable state :)

This PR will need to wait until #2891 is merged as the ruleset resources in the SDK have changed.

@Moser-ss Could you try rebasing and retargeting this branch to go-github-v68?

stevehipwell · 2026-02-17T16:42:01Z

@Moser-ss it looks like you need to fix some unit test failures. Also would it be possible for you to run the organization ruleset acceptance tests locally and provide a screenshot of what ran?

Moser-ss · 2026-02-17T21:27:13Z

@stevehipwell The unit tests were fixed
basicaly I removed the test cases that were testing the validation, which was replaced with the built-in validation
I revisit the acceptance tests and rewrite the failing ones, and test locally against a test organization using the command

 GH_TEST_AUTH_MODE=team GITHUB_OWNER=pipedrive-lab GITHUB_USERNAME=moser-ss GITHUB_TOKEN="${GITHUB_TOKEN}" TF_ACC=1 go test ./github -v -run "TestAccGithubOrganizationRuleset" -count=1

We have two test failing, but those tests are also failing in main brach

deiga · 2026-02-17T22:06:56Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+			t.Fatalf("Error getting test meta: %v", err)
+		}
+
+		ctx := context.Background()


Suggested change

ctx := context.Background()

ctx := t.Context()

deiga · 2026-02-17T22:08:40Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+		for _, prop := range properties {
+			_, _, err := meta.v3client.Organizations.CreateOrUpdateCustomProperty(ctx, org, prop.name, &github.CustomProperty{
+				ValueType:     github.PropertyValueTypeSingleSelect,
+				Required:      github.Ptr(false),
+				AllowedValues: prop.values,
+			})


question: Any reason you don't use resource_github_organization_custom_properties in the test config?

Do you mean to use Terraform to create the custom properties for the tests? I didn't think about that. In my mind, the test code creates all the necessary setup, executes the test case, and tears down the setup at the end.

But do you think that I should set up the test case in the Config or in the PreConfig?

I am afraid to add two actions in the same test case. For example, if we have an issue with the implementation of resource_github_organization_custom_properties, this test will fail. But that is just my way of thinking of having some kind of isolation of the tests.

We use that pattern all over the tests already. I would even argue that having "unrelated" tests failing when some other resource implementation is broken is a benefit.

With your proposed solution we'd additionally have to ensure that this test setup code is kept up-to-date

@deiga I rewerite the tests to using the Config object to setup the test case, also rebase the branch from the main branch

All the tests are passing, expect the one that is already failing in main

deiga · 2026-02-17T22:10:16Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+		// Setup: Create custom property for testing
+		meta, err := getTestMeta()
+		if err != nil {
+			t.Fatalf("Error getting test meta: %v", err)
+		}
+
+		ctx := context.Background()
+		org := testAccConf.owner
+		propName := "e2e_test_environment"
+		propValues := []string{"production", "staging"}
+
+		_, _, err = meta.v3client.Organizations.CreateOrUpdateCustomProperty(ctx, org, propName, &github.CustomProperty{
+			ValueType:     github.PropertyValueTypeSingleSelect,
+			Required:      github.Ptr(false),
+			AllowedValues: propValues,
+		})
+		if err != nil {
+			t.Logf("Warning: Could not create custom property %s (may already exist): %v", propName, err)
+		}
+
+		// Cleanup: Remove custom property after test
+		defer func() {
+			_, err := meta.v3client.Organizations.RemoveCustomProperty(ctx, org, propName)
+			if err != nil {
+				t.Logf("Warning: Could not remove custom property %s: %v", propName, err)
+			}
+		}()


suggestion: What if you use resource_github_organization_custom_properties in the Config?

Add ExactlyOneOf/AtLeastOneOf to repository_property, repository_name,repository_id fields. Remove manual validation counting in util_ruleset_validation.Add 3 validation tests for single/multiple/missing repo targeting options. Addresses PR integrations#2356 review feedback - simplifies validation using schema constraints.

stevehipwell · 2026-02-23T12:52:06Z

@deiga are you able to give this a re-review after the changes? I'll then review it once you're happy.

deiga

Looking good! There are some final touches for the tests left :)

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:54:36Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+	conditions {
+		repository_property {
+			include = [{
+				name            = "%[2]s"


By using a direct dependency you might not need depends_on

Suggested change

name = "%[2]s"

name = github_organization_custom_properties.team.property_name

Tests updated

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:55:42Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+		repository_property {
+			include = []
+			exclude = [{
+				name            = "%[2]s"


See https://github.com/integrations/terraform-provider-github/pull/2356/changes#r2842521695

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:55:57Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+		repository_property {
+			include = [
+				{
+					name            = "%[2]s"


See https://github.com/integrations/terraform-provider-github/pull/2356/changes#r2842521695

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:56:02Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+					property_values = ["production"]
+				},
+				{
+					name            = "%[3]s"


See https://github.com/integrations/terraform-provider-github/pull/2356/changes#r2842521695

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:57:15Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+	t.Run("create_ruleset_with_repository_property", func(t *testing.T) {
+		randomID := acctest.RandStringFromCharSet(5, acctest.CharSetAlphaNum)
+		rulesetName := fmt.Sprintf("%s-repo-prop-ruleset-%s", testResourcePrefix, randomID)
+		propName := fmt.Sprintf("e2e_test_team_%s", randomID)


issue: Please prepend this and other propnames with testResourcePrefix to enable adding a Sweeper for these in the future

deiga · 2026-02-23T18:59:03Z

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset_test.go

+			Steps: []resource.TestStep{
+				{
+					Config: config,
+					Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(


Since there are other changes needed here, could you also replace the usages of Check with ConfigStateChecks (or ConfigPlantChecks where applicable)? https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/plugin/testing/acceptance-tests/state-checks/resource

I replaced Check with ConfigStateChecks in my tests. Do you want me to replace it in all tests in this file?

Refactor expandConditions to reduce complexity Refactor logic to reduce the cognitive complexity and add logic to handle the repository_property field Flatten conditions for repository_property and fix schemas Add test case when ruleset use repository_property Refactor repository property conditions to make them optional Flatten update Target parameters to allow the detection of changes when remote resource is updated Update documentation

- Add ValidateFunc to include.source field for consistency with exclude - Update docs to mention repository_property as third targeting option - Fix missing space in documentation

Add ExactlyOneOf/AtLeastOneOf to repository_property, repository_name,repository_id fields. Remove manual validation counting in util_ruleset_validation.Add 3 validation tests for single/multiple/missing repo targeting options. Addresses PR integrations#2356 review feedback - simplifies validation using schema constraints.

- Add doc example for repository_property usage - Add tests for exclude block, multiple properties, and updates - Fix source field default handling in flatten function to prevent diffs

These tests check validation that was handover to the Terraform built-in validation

Improve e2e tests for the ruleset and improve documentation

Setup the tests case using the config instead of using the API

…consistency

… in organization ruleset

Moser-ss marked this pull request as draft August 20, 2024 18:57

Moser-ss marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2024 22:58

Moser-ss force-pushed the Support-repository_property-for-github_organization_ruleset branch from bb62d7a to 40c5111 Compare August 28, 2024 13:17

Moser-ss changed the title ~~Support repository property for GitHub organization ruleset~~ feat : Support repository property for GitHub organization ruleset Sep 3, 2024

Moser-ss mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2024

[FEAT]: Support targeting dynamic list by properties in organizational rulesets #2137

Open

1 task

kfcampbell reviewed Sep 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

PaarthShah reviewed Oct 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

github/resource_github_organization_ruleset.go Show resolved Hide resolved

dlaguerta mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2025

[FEAT]: support organization level custom_property resource and custom_properties datasource #2642

Open

1 task

loksonarius reviewed May 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

website/docs/r/organization_ruleset.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

loksonarius reviewed May 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

website/docs/r/organization_ruleset.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

deiga approved these changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

deiga suggested changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Moser-ss force-pushed the Support-repository_property-for-github_organization_ruleset branch from 383ba15 to d53f8e2 Compare February 23, 2026 10:24

deiga suggested changes Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Moser-ss added 20 commits February 23, 2026 23:41

Apply format in the code base

35bc82d

Fix repository_property validation and docs

49ab008

- Add ValidateFunc to include.source field for consistency with exclude - Update docs to mention repository_property as third targeting option - Fix missing space in documentation

Support repository_property in push rulesets

e64d7db

Remove unused customdiff imports

d83c9b6

Rever unintencial change

5d32b3f

Add tests, docs, and fix default handling for repository_property

c0333ba

- Add doc example for repository_property usage - Add tests for exclude block, multiple properties, and updates - Fix source field default handling in flatten function to prevent diffs

Apply suggestions from PR comment

59bb126

Add unit tests

c5085be

Remove redundant condition

a24d1d2

Updated description based in the GitHub API docs

121fb86

Apply linter and fmt

309f8d3

Remove unnecessary checks

1b97fb4

Remove tests

968b1af

These tests check validation that was handover to the Terraform built-in validation

Improve syntax for include and exclude property

b33f177

Improve e2e tests for the ruleset and improve documentation

Use t context

3d68770

Rewrite tests using the resource_github_organization_custom_properties

24d2bcb

Setup the tests case using the config instead of using the API

Refactor repository property names in organization ruleset tests for …

6209daa

…consistency

Refactor tests to use state checks for repository property validation…

91298ad

… in organization ruleset

Moser-ss force-pushed the Support-repository_property-for-github_organization_ruleset branch from d53f8e2 to 91298ad Compare February 23, 2026 23:42

Moser-ss requested a review from deiga February 23, 2026 23:43

	name = "%[2]s"
	name = github_organization_custom_properties.team.property_name

Comments

Conversation

Moser-ss commented Aug 20, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Before the change?

After the change?

Pull request checklist

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Uh oh!

Moser-ss commented Sep 7, 2024

Uh oh!

kfcampbell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Moser-ss commented Sep 13, 2024

Uh oh!

Moser-ss commented Oct 5, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stevehipwell commented Nov 5, 2024

Uh oh!

Moser-ss commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

wrighbr commented Nov 14, 2024

Uh oh!

PaarthShah commented Nov 14, 2024

Uh oh!

alexymantha commented Dec 16, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daniddelrio commented Dec 30, 2024

Uh oh!

ChrisStatham commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

aditya-nair1 commented Jan 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vimc9 commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

tayven-bigelow commented Jan 27, 2025

Uh oh!

graham1228 commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

lfraile commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

tayven-bigelow commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

stevehipwell commented Apr 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

loksonarius commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Maksym-Perehinets commented Nov 14, 2025

Uh oh!

deiga commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

stevehipwell commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Moser-ss commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Moser-ss Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

stevehipwell commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

deiga left a comment

Moser-ss commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

alexymantha commented Dec 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

aditya-nair1 commented Jan 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Moser-ss Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading