fix(jtk): include custom fields in search/list JSON output by rianjs · Pull Request #180 · open-cli-collective/atlassian-cli

rianjs · 2026-03-14T12:20:41Z

Closes #179

Summary

JSON output from issues search and issues list now requests all fields (*all) from the Jira API instead of a hardcoded built-in list, so custom fields are no longer null
Adds --fields flag to both commands for explicit field selection (comma-separated, e.g. --fields summary,customfield_10005)
Trims whitespace in --fields values for ergonomic input

Field resolution priority:

--fields specified → use those exact fields
-o json → use *all (return everything)
--full → use DefaultSearchFields
default → use ListSearchFields

Table output is unaffected — columns are hardcoded regardless of which fields are fetched.

Test plan

Unit tests for resolveFields covering all branches + whitespace/trailing comma edge cases
Regression tests verifying outbound HTTP request body contains *all for JSON output
Tests verifying --fields overrides the JSON default
Tests verifying table output still uses ListSearchFields
All existing tests pass
Manual smoke test: jtk issues search --jql 'key = MON-4036' -o json | jq '.[0].fields.customfield_10005'

monit-reviewer

Automated PR Review

Reviewed commit: 3db43ed

Summary

Reviewer	Findings
security:code-auditor	3

security:code-auditor (3 findings)

⚠️ Should Fix - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go:12

resolveFields returns api.DefaultSearchFields and api.ListSearchFields by reference (slices). A caller that appends to the returned slice could mutate the package-level variable. Consider returning a copy: append([]string(nil), api.DefaultSearchFields...) for the full and default cases.

💡 Suggestion - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go:21

When --fields produces zero non-empty tokens (e.g. --fields ",, "), resolveFields returns an empty slice rather than falling through to the json/full/default logic. An empty fields list may cause the Jira API to return no fields or an error. Consider falling through when the parsed slice is empty, or returning an error.

💡 Suggestion - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go:1

No test covers the edge case where fieldsFlag is non-empty but resolves to zero fields after trimming (e.g. --fields ",, "). The code returns an empty slice in this scenario, but the behaviour is not tested.

Completed in 47s | $0.18 | sonnet

Field	Value
Model	sonnet
Reviewers	hybrid-synthesis, security:code-auditor
Reviewed by	pr-review-daemon · monit-pr-reviewer
Duration	47s (Reviewers: 31s · Synthesis: 18s)
Cost	$0.18
Tokens	79.3k in / 2.6k out
Turns	7

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:22:24Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go

+// resolveFields determines which fields to request from the Jira API based on
+// the --fields flag, output format, and --full flag.
+func resolveFields(fieldsFlag, outputFormat string, full bool) []string {
+	if fieldsFlag != "" {


🟡 Medium (security:code-auditor): resolveFields returns api.DefaultSearchFields and api.ListSearchFields by reference (slices). A caller that appends to the returned slice could mutate the package-level variable. Consider returning a copy: append([]string(nil), api.DefaultSearchFields...) for the full and default cases.

Fixed in 803f690 — now returns copies via append([]string(nil), ...) for both DefaultSearchFields and ListSearchFields.

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:22:24Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go

+			}
+		}
+		return fields
+	}


🔵 Low (security:code-auditor): When --fields produces zero non-empty tokens (e.g. --fields ",, "), resolveFields returns an empty slice rather than falling through to the json/full/default logic. An empty fields list may cause the Jira API to return no fields or an error. Consider falling through when the parsed slice is empty, or returning an error.

Fixed in 803f690 — empty token list now falls through to the json/full/default logic instead of returning an empty slice.

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:22:24Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+package issues


🔵 Low (security:code-auditor): No test covers the edge case where fieldsFlag is non-empty but resolves to zero fields after trimming (e.g. --fields ",, "). The code returns an empty slice in this scenario, but the behaviour is not tested.

Added in 803f690 — two new test cases: all empty tokens falls through to json default and all empty tokens falls through to list default.

monit-reviewer

Automated PR Review

Reviewed commit: 803f690

Approved with 3 non-blocking suggestions below. Address at your discretion.

Summary

Reviewer	Findings
security:code-auditor	3

security:code-auditor (3 findings)

💡 Suggestion - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go:23

When --fields contains only whitespace/empty tokens, the code silently falls through to defaults with no user feedback. A warning to stderr when fieldsFlag is non-empty but yields zero valid fields would help users catch typos like '--fields , ,'.

💡 Suggestion - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go:113

newSearchServer only handles the happy path: it always returns HTTP 200 with a fixed body regardless of the HTTP method or path. Adding a method/path assertion (e.g. checking r.URL.Path contains 'search') would make test failures easier to diagnose.

💡 Suggestion - tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go:148

The integration-style tests (TestRunSearch_, TestRunList_) only assert on captured.Fields and not on response parsing or rendered output. If JSON marshalling of Fields in api.SearchRequest changes (e.g. omitempty added), these tests would still pass while the feature breaks. A complementary assertion on stdout output for at least one test case would increase confidence.

Completed in 48s | $0.15 | sonnet

Field	Value
Model	sonnet
Reviewers	hybrid-synthesis, security:code-auditor
Reviewed by	pr-review-daemon · monit-pr-reviewer
Duration	48s (Reviewers: 39s · Synthesis: 11s)
Cost	$0.15
Tokens	79.8k in / 2.5k out
Turns	7

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:24:53Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields.go

+		if len(fields) > 0 {
+			return fields
+		}
+		// Fall through to defaults if all tokens were empty/whitespace


🔵 Low (security:code-auditor): When --fields contains only whitespace/empty tokens, the code silently falls through to defaults with no user feedback. A warning to stderr when fieldsFlag is non-empty but yields zero valid fields would help users catch typos like '--fields , ,'.

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:24:53Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go

+				testutil.Equal(t, tt.want[i], got[i])
+			}
+		})
+	}


🔵 Low (security:code-auditor): newSearchServer only handles the happy path: it always returns HTTP 200 with a fixed body regardless of the HTTP method or path. Adding a method/path assertion (e.g. checking r.URL.Path contains 'search') would make test failures easier to diagnose.

monit-reviewer · 2026-03-14T12:24:53Z

tools/jtk/internal/cmd/issues/search_fields_test.go

+		_ = json.NewEncoder(w).Encode(result)
+	}))
+}
+


🔵 Low (security:code-auditor): The integration-style tests (TestRunSearch_, TestRunList_) only assert on captured.Fields and not on response parsing or rendered output. If JSON marshalling of Fields in api.SearchRequest changes (e.g. omitempty added), these tests would still pass while the feature breaks. A complementary assertion on stdout output for at least one test case would increase confidence.

jtk README: add dashboards and links command sections, add --type/ --assignee/--parent flags to issues create/update, add --full and --next-page-token to issues list/search, fix --max default (50→25), document escape sequence support in --description. jtk CHANGELOG: add 9 missing Unreleased entries (dashboards, links, bearer auth, pagination, assignee, parent, type change, escapes, automation rule builder). cfl CHANGELOG: add 3 missing Unreleased entries (bearer auth, --storage flag, wiki-link syntax). Top-level README: add dashboards, links, fields, space management, and config examples to quick reference sections.

JSON output from `issues search` and `issues list` now requests all fields (`*all`) from the Jira API instead of a hardcoded built-in list, so custom fields are no longer null. Adds a `--fields` flag to both commands for explicit field selection.

Adds httptest-based tests verifying the outbound request body contains the correct fields parameter: *all for JSON output, explicit fields when --fields is set, and ListSearchFields for table output. Also fixes whitespace trimming in --fields parsing and adds edge case tests.

…llthrough - Return copies of package-level field slices to prevent caller mutation - Fall through to defaults when --fields contains only empty/whitespace tokens - Add tests for all-empty-tokens edge case

Catches up documentation for recent features and fixes: - README: document --fields flag, auto-pagination, fields command group, users get subcommand, --assignee none, multi-value --field, and escape sequences in comment --body - CHANGELOG: add entries for PRs #178, #180, #182, #186-189 - integration-tests: add test cases for auto-pagination, --fields, users get, --assignee none, multi-value --field, and escape sequences Closes #183

#190) Catches up documentation for recent features and fixes: - README: document --fields flag, auto-pagination, fields command group, users get subcommand, --assignee none, multi-value --field, and escape sequences in comment --body - CHANGELOG: add entries for PRs #178, #180, #182, #186-189 - integration-tests: add test cases for auto-pagination, --fields, users get, --assignee none, multi-value --field, and escape sequences Closes #183

monit-reviewer suggested changes Mar 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

monit-reviewer approved these changes Mar 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

rianjs added 4 commits March 14, 2026 08:26

fix(jtk): address PR review — defensive slice copy and empty-token fa…

183c42e

…llthrough - Return copies of package-level field slices to prevent caller mutation - Fall through to defaults when --fields contains only empty/whitespace tokens - Add tests for all-empty-tokens edge case

rianjs force-pushed the fix/jtk-search-custom-fields branch from 803f690 to 183c42e Compare March 14, 2026 12:26

fix(jtk): fix goimports grouping in search_fields_test.go

9008466

rianjs merged commit 29259c8 into main Mar 14, 2026
7 checks passed

rianjs deleted the fix/jtk-search-custom-fields branch March 14, 2026 12:30

rianjs mentioned this pull request Mar 15, 2026

docs(jtk): true up README, CHANGELOG, and integration tests #183

Closed

rianjs mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2026

docs: update README, CHANGELOG, and integration tests #190

Merged

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(jtk): include custom fields in search/list JSON output#180

fix(jtk): include custom fields in search/list JSON output#180
rianjs merged 5 commits intomainfrom
fix/jtk-search-custom-fields

rianjs commented Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer left a comment

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

rianjs Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

rianjs Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

rianjs Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer left a comment

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

rianjs commented Mar 14, 2026

Summary

Test plan

Uh oh!

monit-reviewer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Automated PR Review

Summary

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!

monit-reviewer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Automated PR Review

Summary

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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants