Issue Types Public Preview #148715
Replies: 39 comments 110 replies
-
|
Congrats for the feature release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree this could've been "solved" by implementing organization-wide labels, instead of creating a new field that is also limited to issues only (not available for PRs) as mentioned by @probitcarwyn. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thinking about it a bit more, issue types could have been implemented as namespaced labels where types are a namespace (optional at the discretion of the organisation). You often see namespaces emulated via naming conventions like There's another parallel to labels too, project fields, that also annotate issues with metadata, but only if the issues are in a project. The main gotcha with these if that if you remove an issue from a project, this metadata is lost. It's causing quite some confusion for us now having these somewhat disjoint metadata sources, each with their own semantics. Arguably project fields are the richest, but lacking a multi-valued option which labels have. A similar dichotomy exists between milestones, and project based date fields with sub-issues, again with different semantics. It would be interesting to see the thinking behind the data model and semantics of these features, especially how the semantics relate to each other. Was this considered? I do wonder if a more formal theoretical basis for these features would be beneficial? Thinking ahead to issue workflows (which has vanished from the roadmap) i do wonder if all this makes that task much more complex than it needs to be. The lack of workflows (which are really allowed metadata state transitions) is the biggest bugbear we have with GH issues at the moment. Workflows and especially enforced workflows being a big requirement for larger organisations that have certifications to consider. For example, there's no way to block issues progressing through a project board without some pre-condition being met. Actions would be great for this, but all you can do to enforce is write a convoluted action using the APIs to move things back after they move when they shouldn't. Bots are a sticking plaster over this stuff. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The thread in the initial issue (during the opt-in phase) https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/139933#discussioncomment-10885036 touches the same problem. "Issue types" in its current shape seems harmful (less is more).
This would be great. In our case, we have have 3 kind of issue labels: a. Product scope labels (e.g. billing, onboarding) b. Prioritization type labels (e.g. regression, bug, new features, priority: high) c. Skill / kind of work labels (e.g. design, Safari). The notion of issues type feels absurd in our context (too opinionated to help). Off-topic: Going to amazing for us would be to be able to subscribe to notifications that are only about new issues with specific labels so product owners can be aware of new (a.) Product scope labels. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/16682 scoped labels solve this entirely without added noise. It's the only reason my org sticks to Gitlab at this point. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree 100% with using scoped labels + organization labels. Would be a much more flexible solution. Our org has lots of labels already that are in the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It would be nice if the issue types were visible on the list of issues in a milestone (ex: https://github.com/dotnet/android/milestone/38). When looking to prioritize work assigned to a milestone, probably the most important information is whether it is a bug or feature. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for this feedback! We are aware of this and have plans to bring issue types to this page as well. We will keep you posted on when you can expect this as we know it is an important piece of information to see as you work with milestones! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We do not have a concrete timeline quite yet as we make plans to migrate the milestones, labels, and /issues dashboard pages, but as soon as we have more details we'll be sure to share them with you all! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can an option to disable this be added please ? As @hyangah @andrewbanchich @@probitcarwyn and @jahirfiquitiva pointed out above, this has a HUGE duplication with labels - and in most repos/organisations, this is already handled via labels. As a developer, I don't like having to maintain duplicate code in multiple places. The field is just noise I can do without. Actually, on that note: why does the "Projects" field still show up when the "Projects" feature has been disabled for a repo ? Again: noise I can do without.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Appreciate all of the feedback on this! We will keep you posted for any updates. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@rileybroughten Labels are a workaround. Making it an explicit field is the right way to go, what you're observing here is just the usual migration pains + change aversion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I disagree @LeaVerou , if you think about the actual data model underneath this, and especially how you might want certain labels to only apply to certain types, then scoping/nesting is what you end up in that case too. Once you get to there you're back to questionable value of a disjoint metadata field, especially when you think ahead to how you might implement workflows (state machines across label states). Having been on the private preview for a few months now with Issue Types, when to use which (label vs type) and the lack of types on PRs has been a consistent topic of confusion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I like having enforcement of a singular "label". I don't want people to label things as feature and bug. Having a field for singular classification is nice on top of the labels to further describe the issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We too need an option to disable this field. We deleted the bug, feature and task labels, and we don't want this field. The previous labels and this field provide no value to our workflows for managing issue, but they do create cognitive load for our users filing issues. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can you add the ability to select the issue type in the issue templates? Because currently we are limited to labels, and then manually selecting the type, which is less than ideal 🤷🏼♂️ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Good suggestion! We're working on getting the public documentation updated to include this field. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@rileybroughten projects are not supported in md files issue templates, as they are supported in yml file of issue templates, any ETA? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We don't have an ETA at the moment, I've raised this again with the team and will keep you posted with any updates 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Docs have been updated to include |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
EDIT: There is a bug in the mobile app: When I define the issue type in my form, the option will not show up in the mobile selection menu! Btw feedback in general: Despite many people not liking that it was not implemented as org-wide labels, I love the new issue type. I assume that one difference is that one issue can have multiple labels but only one type, so this differentiation gives more emphasis to the type. ❤️ As a reference: https://github.com/trueberryless-org/.github/blob/main/.github%2FISSUE_TEMPLATE%2F0_bug_report.yaml#L5 Try creating an issue in this repo... (bug only exists on mobile devices) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feedback: the Action item: Document this outside this discussion @ https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/syntax-for-issue-forms. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for this feedback, we'll work on getting the documentation updated! When making edits to your issue forms, you'll see a note on the right hand side for configuration options. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Docs have been updated! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks! P.S. On the two-week-old comment — I almost never start these via web UI. I'm pretty sure the primary audience of that web view is the first time users. Like with many similar things, I treat these forms as shareable configs. So when I suggest changes in other repos, I look into what I've got in my typical configs and copy from there. Rarely, I'd go check the docs. But it never occurs to me to use the “create file” web page. Once I have a config that I like the shape of, I just copy it into many/all my projects and go from there. There's just no mental model for “has anything changed in the docs?” |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feedback: Issue Types don't seem to be available in regular GitHub accounts, only in the orgs (some orgs?) Suggestion: Make them available to mere mortals. This may be useful to mass-maintainers who organize their repos under personal accounts rather than creating orgs. Workaround: One would be tempted to create an org just to gain access to such features. It's not a bad thing, it's actually a good way to organize big amounts of projects and get a number of other features that are rather limiting in user accounts. I'm pretty sure people do this for other features already. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for the feedback and for the suggested workaround, while we don't have plans to expand this to user accounts, we'll keep you posted on any updates. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@rileybroughten Can you share the reasoning behind not expanding this to user accounts? I have many private and public repos that aren't part of an org that would greatly benefit from having issue types but don't need to be an org. Yes, in theory, I could create an org for myself and move those repos into it, but that seems counterintuitive and a lot of hassle for something that should simply be available. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for sharing this feedback @scottdorman. We wanted to provide these to help organizations standardize and classify issues across their repositories, especially in the initial release. We're discussing this internally and will provide updates on any plans to expand them to user-owned repositories in this discussion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If they aren't available for user accounts, can we disable them in the UI? I have a private personal repo that still shows it as a filter, as way to categorize existing ones, and on issue creation. Since it can't be used, its a bit confusing to have there (I spent a few minutes just now trying to see how to configure it for my repo and/or user). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I would like to advocate for making issue types available for personal repositories as well, given that personal repos can also be large and require extensive issue management. For example, take my project. Although this is a personal repository, it has over a thousand issues. Currently, I have to implement issue types using labels like As for why I don’t just create an organization, this repository would be the only one in that org, and I’m the only active maintainer. That setup doesn’t make sense for me. It would be great if I could simply use issue types in my personal repository. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
feedback: when using a board display in projects, it would be nice to have a view of this in the toasts. Since space is very limited there, might I suggest a colored bar (option ?) something like this ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
-
|
Thanks for this feedback! You can also choose to show or hide the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
oh, I realize that, but it displays it mixed in with the labels which kind of defeat the purpose of having them separate (and honestly render them useless if I understand the design purpose of quickly being able to identify a toast type). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I noticed that you can only select between a small number of colors. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for this suggestion, we have it noted 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 for a colour wheel or field for html hex code |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree. We need the ability to choose the color just like with labels. But a color wheel and vertical saturation bar would be excellent to make it easy to quickly select colors so we do not have to deal with the hex codes |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We're getting issue types before scoped labels? It's been years 😔 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It would be nice to make issue types a repository-level setting. Otherwise, when moving a project to a different org, I imagine weird things will happen. Having that contained in the repository seems more useful to me. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Our org already has issue types in the form of labels, but I can't find any way to bulk-convert from one to the other. Are there any plans to add functionality like the "Convert to discussions" button for switching over to the new format? Alternately I would love to see support instead for scoped labels with organization-level management (like the way workflow secrets work). That would allow us to keep all our existing tags, just move them up to the org level. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As far as bulk converting there are a few options:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@rileybroughten this is what we did too, but it would be nice to have a way to override the pagination so that folks don't need to do it once per page (and large repos can have A LOT of pages!). Especially since it takes some time to apply bulk actions, and one cannot trigger another bulk action while one is already running. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This feedback has been open since the opt-in. Still not working. We have some 10k issues- having everybody write custom tooling to do this at scale is a no-go. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @rileybroughten, unlike in your screenshot, the How to categorize issues in bulk and tag them correctly when bug or feature labels were used before? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We are investigating this, see https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/148715#discussioncomment-12901668 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is it possible to create an issue via the REST API with an issue type? I could not find this mentioned in the REST API docs and in this post, only GraphQL was used as an example. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Development is ongoing for managing issue types with the REST API - we hope to release this to you all in the coming weeks 😁 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We're starting to roll out support for the REST API, if you'd like to test this early please provide the name of your organization(s) and we can get you access this week. Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Check out the changelog which details support for issue types in the REST API. Let us know if you have questions or feedback! 🚀 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thank you! Works like a charm. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I already did my jira migration to github using the graphql api, but thank you for doing this nonetheless! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I wonder why is it not possible to assign types to pull requests? I often create pull requests out of the blue without having an issue first, and now while migrating to issue types I found that I end up with a need to keep Feature/Bug labels just to be able to assign them to PRs. P.S: Overall I'm quite liking this for organizations with lots of small repos where doing the work of setting up labels on every repo was too much of a hassle. Thanks 👍🏻 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for this feedback! They are scoped to only being present on issues to help you categorize and classify your work, break it down if needed using sub-issues, and report on it so you can understand the breakdown and progress of work across repositories. Then creating or linking a pull request helps you track the code changes and fixes to resolve and close out the bug, task, etc. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello, Thanks ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What about enabling organizations to define multiple dropdown fields, each with their own options? For example:
I usually use Notion due this capacity. A screenshot for reference: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This has been called scoped labels or nested labels in other comments on this thread. I do think this is what Types should be and it should be unified with labels. See also: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great feature! I agree it would be nice for the list to be customizable. One bug we noticed: it seems that if an issue is set to an issue type of "Bug" it doesn't show up in the Bugs section, as that is keyed on "bug" labels only. Ideally, it would be an OR. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Could you elaborate how you would like this be done?
What is the Bugs section in this case? If you could provide more details or screenshots on this setup that would be great! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The Refined GitHub extension adds a Bugs section, maybe that's what is meant here? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think it's important to have PRs also support type, because in our repository, both PRs and issues use the same classification labels. We can replace the classification labels of the issues with type, but PRs are not feasible. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I expect "PR Type" would add confusion in my org so I'll make the case against it. A PR can have many commits and address multiple issues. For example, both a bug and an enhancement.
This feature is in preview. Once it lands the defaults will change.
Why is that necessary? If you want to know whether a PR is fixing a bug, isn't that implied by what issue the PR is closing? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
But often, a PR that fixes a bug doesn't close any issues at all. Then we can only use classification labels to classify every kind of PRs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't know if the issue types confusion is a development workflow I've never heard of or lack of information on why issues have types. It has popped up a bit throughout this thread. In the case of the latter.
With that in mind, labels serve two purpose: to classify for reporting and for an aid in filtering/finding. Issues are a little more complex. Consider the entire development workflow. Not all stakeholders are developers. So how does a non-technical person communicate a feature to be added to the software? this is where issue types come into play. The common issue types are as follows (and in the hierarchical order):
The remaining common issue type is:
An Once you have those issue types the dev workflow moves towards a developer creating a This workflow of development opens up the possibility of reporting how long it took to create a feature (duration the parent was open for). In addition and particularly when your software becomes more complex, you can't work on a single feature per release. You can however complete some tasks as part of a release. I'm personally of the opinion that issue types are an "about time" feature, with the only missing feature being issue dependencies ( |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I like your reply @jon-nfc , the split in thinking as to which role (issure creator vs issue curator) makes use of labels vs types is useful. This is especially the case if you then base your issue template on the type selected. Perhaps the overlaps in default values for types vs lablels (both have bug and enhancement for example) needs consideration, with some docs on example use cases and flows. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I can't take the credit for what I've explained as it's part of the common development workflow. It does have a name, although it escapes me.
Although the labels do overlap with types, they are sensible defaults. If the labels that overlap issue types were removed, with the exception of using conventional commits, how do you determine/filter if a PR fixed a bug? was an enhancement? etc. I don't know if documentation will help or if it's the answer. Github is a platform for software developers. With that in mind, there is no requirement to document issue types and label usage (outside of their existence) as developers have been professionally trained. However this far from reality, as Github is also used by self taught "software developers." This groups knowledge will range from the "I know boats" through to "very knowledgeable" More recently the IT world has moved into using Github, due to the latest buzzword "GitOPS" I believe this is the group that will possibly struggle with the software DevOPS concepts. Although again, I don't know if documentation will fix the underlying issue of a lack of knowledge. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
How do I sort issue types after creating them? I'm not seeing an option on the dashboard. I can currently workaround this by deleting each type, and re-creating them where I want them but this process is currently tedious. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We have it on our backlog to be able to reorder this list, I'll keep you posted with updates as we start working on it! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My repo is under my personal account (https://github.com/baptisteArno/typebot.io) so I can't use that feature?? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Issue types are currently available for organization-owned repositories only. We'll provide updates in this discussion for any plans to expand them to user-owned repositories. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There's already been a lot of feedback in response to issue types being exclusive to orgs but I wanted to point out that this makes a very confusing user experience across the platform. I would wonder why do some repositories use types and others don't? Aside from feature adoption issues, the fact that some repos straight up can't have types even if the maintainer wanted them, means that this will be a more lasting point of confusion. At least with labels, that's something that feels almost universal and applies to all repositories regardless of ownership. I'd expect there to be a long period of labels vs types on the platform regardless, but I imagine it would eventually settle down with wider adoption of the types feature (especially if GitHub changes the default set of labels to encourage using types). Keeping types as a feature exclusive to orgs prevents this wider adoption and perpetuates the labels vs type confusion. There's a number of other great issues raised in this thread, but I do hope y'all consider bringing types to all repos if only for a consistent user experience. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for this feedback @MattMcAdams - we will provide updates on this discussion with plans and timing of when you can expect to see issue types supported in user-owned repositories as well |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is there a way to make GH use the type for the automatic branch naming? E.g. an issue of type Feature leads to a branch named |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
-
|
Hey, thanks for the feature ! I noticed that's its not available for release template used when for the auto generated release notes With this example : Is it something planned ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We don't have immediate plans to address this, but I've passed this feedback along to the team. Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 for this feature! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feedback on Issue Types Public PreviewWhat’s Working Well ✅
Bugs/Issues Encountered 🐛
Suggested Improvements 💡
Final Thoughts 📝The Issue Types feature is a great step forward for structured issue management on GitHub. While it improves organization and automation, a few enhancements—especially repo-level customization, UI improvements, and better webhook support—would make it even more powerful. Overall, a solid addition to GitHub Issues, and I look forward to future updates! 🚀 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@CloneOfAlex here is the documentation for webhooks when issues are typed and untyped. Let me know if that helps! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi, I noticed a bug. When you define value as below then it will throw error that invalid. issue: "Task"it work as issue: 'Task' |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Could you provide more details about this error you are seeing, such as any screenshots and how you're performing this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Would be great if issue types were available in the GraphQL API and CLI as well. Concretely
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
And projects |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Here are GraphQL docs for issue type objects and mutations. Support in the CLI is not yet supported, we will keep you updated on progress there! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So it looks like Github forced this "issue type" to everyone around UTC 15:00, and there is no way to disable it anymore. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As you see below: the header reports 37 open issues, but the list only shows 16. Previously the two numbers would match. Why is that? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This appears to have now been fixed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is enabled on our organization and now looks like it's disappeared from our issue management interface, which is deeply annoying because we kind of removed all of our relevant labels with this new feature, not realizing it was a preview? Like we can't bulk assign types anymore? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@simonv3 this is now fixed, let us know if you encounter any other unexpected behaviors! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @rileybroughten ! I see it on the filter of the issues list but am still missing it when bulk editing issues, wasn't sure if that was maybe a caching thing or not |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Same here, I see But not when selecting issues to edit them: In general it would be helpful if the order follows the same logic in either view: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for raising this, I've passed it along to the team and will provide updates! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This has been fixed! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It's kind of funny that I can see meaningless filter by Type in my repositories, but can't set issue types at the repository level without having an organization in place. I may not understand the depth of the idea, but it seems that there should be at least a possibility to set issue types at the repository level settings. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think that repo-level issue types would be highly beneficial for many people and bring a lot of value. 😀 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Would be great if we could change the issue count in the repository's header to only count issues of a certain type (e.g. Bug). We're generally open to people submitting feature requests as issues, but this results in an inflated issue count. Allowing only a specific issue type to count towards the number would make it a better representative of the project's health. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Feedback wanted
Thank you for participating in the issue types public preview. Please leave your feedback below on what is working well, any bugs you encounter, and what else you’d like to see!
To provide your feedback on other experiences released at the same time, please visit:
Issue types
Issues types allow you to classify and manage your issues with a shared and consistent language across all repositories in the organization, such as bugs or tasks.
Customizing default issue types
An organization administrator can customize the issue types that makes sense for the organization from the organization settings "Planning" page in the “Issue types” section, with bug, task, and feature provided by default to get you started. These are available for all repositories in the organization.
Organization settings page
Adding a type to an issue
When you create a new issue, you can change the issue type using the
Typesection on the right. You can also change the issue type from this location once an issue has been created.Screen.Recording.2024-09-30.at.1.45.49.PM.mov
When creating a sub-issue from an issue, you'll find this at the bottom next to the other issue metadata.
Additionally, you can specify the
typequalifier in issue forms in your repositories, so that each issue created from each template automatically has the type set. See the documentation here.Issue form with `type` field
If you’d like to add or change the issue type for existing issues, you can update it from the repository page by selecting one or multiple issues using the checkbox to the left of each issue, or from a project using the
Typefield by copying and pasting or dragging cells.Creating custom views in your project
In a project, you can use the new
Typefield to customize your views by filtering, sorting, slicing, or grouping, so you can visualize and understand the breakdown of your issues.You can even use the
Typefield in the auto-add to project workflow, so you can automatically add these to your project.Auto-add to project workflow
Automating issue types
There are now
typedanduntypedwebhook payload objects for the issues webhook event that trigger a GitHub action.Issue types are supported in the REST API to manage issue types, adding them to issues, and search within a repository or organization. See the documentation for more details.
For the GraphQL API, there is an IssueType object to manage issue types at the organization level to create, update, and delete them. You can also create a new issue with an issue type, update the issue type, and query a repository by issue type.
Click to view GraphQL details
Note that these requests will need to include the GraphQL-Features header with a value of
issue_types.Objects and Fields
Query Issue.IssueType
Returns issue type based on issue ID
Query IssueType
Returns fields for issue type i.e. private, enabled etc.
Query IssueType.issues connection (w/ repository argument)
Returns total count of issues (with associated fields i.e. title, state etc) with an issue type based on specified repo.
Query issueTypes using global search filter API
Org wide searches for issue type.
Mutations
Create Issue Type
Update Issue Type
Delete Issue Type
Create Issue -> w/ Issue Type
Update Issue -> w/ Issue Type
Update Issue Issue Type
Next steps
We are continuing to improve the Issues experience, and so we’d love to hear your feedback as you try out the new experience and start using issue types.
Closing Discussion Notice
As we've shipped the GA for Issues today, we are closing this discussion. Please direct all Issues and Projects feedback in the Evolving GitHub Issues and Projects (GA) discussion. Thank you!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions