[p4rtridge]

Which issue does this PR address?

Relates to #2883

Rationale

The personal access token command encoders in the Go SDK had only partial
serialization coverage. The existing test checked the CreatePersonalAccessToken
expiry encoding with a single fixed name. It did not check the command code,
the name length prefix for other name lengths, or the other two access token
commands. Exact-byte assertions catch protocol compatibility regressions.

What changed?

Reworked access_token_test.go into table-driven serialization tests for all
three commands in access_token.go. Each case checks the command code and the
complete request body.

• CreatePersonalAccessToken (code 42): the four existing expiry cases (server
  default, little-endian layout, values past 32 bits, never expire), plus an
  empty name and a longer name, to cover the u8 length prefix.
• GetPersonalAccessTokens (code 41): the body is empty.
• DeletePersonalAccessToken (code 43): short, empty and longer names.

That is 10 cases. No production code changed.

Local Execution

• Passed go test -count=1 ./..., go test -race -count=1 ./... and
  go vet ./... from foreign/go.
• Passed the applicable prek pre-commit hooks for the changed file.
• Passed the prek pre-push Go lint hook.

AI Usage

• Tool: Claude Code
• Scope: Assisted with reviewing my changes
• Verification: I ran the checks above and compared each expected byte layout
  against the encoders in access_token.go and the server's protocol
  definitions.
• I can explain each assertion and the wire layout it checks.

[github-actions]

Thanks for the PR. It is labeled S-waiting-on-review and queued for review.

If AI was used to create this PR, you must run the team-review skill before opening it.

Slash commands (own line, regular comment) move it around the queue:

• /ready - back to S-waiting-on-review after addressing feedback
• /author - flip to S-waiting-on-author while you finish changes
• /request-review @user-or-team - request a reviewer
• /pin - exempt the PR from the stale bot, /unpin to undo

See CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

[justinmclean]

Thanks @p4rtridge, and for picking up access_token.go from #2883. I checked the expected bytes against the three encoders in access_token.go and the command codes against core/binary_protocol/src/codes.rs (41, 42, 43), and they match. One small thing: the old failure message printed the bodies with % x, which is easier to read for byte layouts than %v. Could you keep % x?

[p4rtridge]

Thanks @p4rtridge, and for picking up access_token.go from #2883. I checked the expected bytes against the three encoders in access_token.go and the command codes against core/binary_protocol/src/codes.rs (41, 42, 43), and they match. One small thing: the old failure message printed the bodies with % x, which is easier to read for byte layouts than %v. Could you keep % x?

Thanks for reviewing! I’ve changed the failure message from %v to %x.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.02%. Comparing base (2487036) to head (2a3dbe5).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #4640      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     91.03%   91.02%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     3878     3873       -5     
============================================
  Files          1561     1561              
  Lines        403732   403123     -609     
  Branches     337601   337006     -595     
============================================
- Hits         367521   366931     -590     
+ Misses        28851    28828      -23     
- Partials       7360     7364       +4     

Components	Coverage Δ
Rust Core	92.26% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
Java SDK	79.34% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
C# SDK	84.43% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Python SDK	86.50% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
PHP SDK	92.23% <ø> (ø)
Node SDK	96.62% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️
Go SDK	71.81% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️
C++ SDK	86.84% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
see 58 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[hubcio]

/skill team-review

[github-actions]

Summary: The new access-token serialization tests match the command codes, byte layout, and server wire format. The added name rows miss the 255-byte boundary, the empty-name rows encode a rejected name, and the three tests duplicate one harness.

Counts: critical 0, warning 0, nit 2, simplification 1

---

This review was generated by Claude Code 2.1.310 on deepseek-flash[1m]. Review the output before you act on it.

[hubcio]

no findings in the reviewed changes.

[hubcio]

approved.