[ThomasK33]

The single-field body validators on upstream's ValidationProblemDetails routes now name their fields in invalid_params. This is PR 5, the last PR of the plan in #352 (issuecomment-6143529650). PR 4 (#436) added invalid_params for decode failures. The PR stays under 500 lines (315), so it needs no split by route family.

Which checks name a field

Route family	name	reason
Repo create, PATCH, fork, sync create	default_branch, base_repo.default_branch	is required, is not a valid branch name
Fork and copy	base_repo.name, base_repo.auth.token	is required / is required for a copy
Sync create (base_repo form)	base_repo.owner, base_repo.name, base_repo.provider, base_repo.operation, base_repo.upstream_host	is required, is not supported, must be sync or fork, is not a valid host, is denied by the sync egress policy
Sync create (upstream form)	upstream.provider, upstream.owner, upstream.name, upstream.access, upstream.host	the same, plus must be app or public, must be public
Branches and tags	target_branch, name (tag), ref	must be a valid branch name, must be a valid tag name, is required
Git credentials	password, id	is required, is a reserved value
Grep	query.pattern, context.before / context.after, limits.max_lines, limits.max_matches_per_file, pagination.limit, pagination.cursor, paths.N	is required, must be at least 0, must be between 1 and 2000, must be at least 1, is not a valid cursor, must be a non-empty path
Archive	max_blob_size, include_globs.N / exclude_globs.N, archive.prefix	must be at least 0, must be a non-empty glob, must be a relative path inside the archive

A check that finds several empty fields names each one. For example, {"upstream":{"provider":"github"}} gives two items, upstream.owner and upstream.name.

These name no field: rules across fields (base_repo and upstream cannot both be set, force requires target_branch, "one of base_ref, base_branch or preferred_base"), query parameters (including a default_branch query override), and result-envelope bodies (tier 3 in #352). Delete-branch's name is also left out, because it can come from the query or the body.

Review follow-ups from PR 4 included here

• One reason for a non-object member: the strict checker now says must be an object, like type errors. The message text is unchanged.
• jsonKind reports must be a string for types that decode from a JSON string (encoding.TextUnmarshaler, []byte). A mutation check fails the new time.Time and []byte cases.
• The notes read 404 "object_ref does not resolve to a commit" now carries ref_not_found, from the PR 3 advisory.

What stays the same

error and detail text, status codes, code, and the application/json content type. validateSyncBaseRepo and parseUpstreamConfig now return errors in place of message strings, with the same messages.

Tests

• TestInvalidParamsOnValidators (full server, pg and sqlite): 28 cases across the route families above, each asserting the exact item list, plus the negative controls (query parameter, both forms, force without target).
• assertProblemFields still checks the member set and item shape on every full-server plain-error assertion.

Dogfood

The same requests ran on a real local-mode server (SQLite + files) built from origin/main (66f5c32) and from this branch (b2089fd), then through the stable Go and TS SDKs (1.17.1). The only difference is invalid_params on the five single-field failures. The cross-field rule carries none, and SDK output is identical. The clips are real-time asciinema replays rendered with agg.

pr5-ab.mp4

Docs: docs/reference/http-api.md (Errors) and the RFC 9457 row of docs/explanation/wire-compatibility.md.

Refs #352

---

Generated with xum • Model: anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 • Thinking: high

[ThomasK33]

@codex review

[ThomasK33]

@codex security review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-13T17:11:19.522819Z	b2089fd	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-13T17:10:07.071273Z	b2089fd	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b2089fd248

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

Reviewed commit: b2089fd248

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".