gastownhall/beads · error

force releases whoever holds the issue and expected-assignee

Error message

force releases whoever holds the issue and expected-assignee releases only a named holder; a request cannot ask for both

What it means

ValidateReleaseRequest refuses a request that sets both ExpectedAssignee (non-nil, non-empty) and Force=true. Force releases whoever currently holds the issue; ExpectedAssignee releases only a named holder. They answer the same question and disagree, so a single request cannot ask for both — mirroring UpdateRequest's rule for ForceAssigneeTransfer beside its own ExpectedAssignee.

Source

Thrown at internal/workapi/release.go:44

		return fmt.Errorf("%w: release requires an actor to attribute it to", issueops.ErrValidation)
	}
	if strings.TrimSpace(in.IssueID) == "" {
		return fmt.Errorf("%w: release requires an issue id", issueops.ErrValidation)
	}
	if in.ExpectedAssignee != nil {
		// A non-nil pointer to "" is NOT "expected unassigned" here, unlike
		// UpdateRequest.ExpectedAssignee: releasing a row nobody holds is not a
		// release, and the raw seam beneath this role refuses the empty
		// expectation in as many words.
		if strings.TrimSpace(*in.ExpectedAssignee) == "" {
			return fmt.Errorf("%w: expected assignee must name a holder; there is no release of an unheld issue",
				issueops.ErrValidation)
		}
		// The two are answers to the same question and they disagree, which is
		// the rule UpdateRequest states for ForceAssigneeTransfer beside its
		// own ExpectedAssignee.
		if in.Force {
			return fmt.Errorf("%w: force releases whoever holds the issue and expected-assignee releases only a named holder; a request cannot ask for both",
				issueops.ErrValidation)
		}
	}
	return nil
}

View on GitHub (pinned to 71377f2769)

Solutions

1. Set Force=false and keep ExpectedAssignee to release only if the named holder still holds it
2. Set ExpectedAssignee=nil and keep Force=true to release whoever holds it
3. Add mutual-exclusion validation at the CLI/config layer so the two options cannot be combined

Example fix

// before
req := issueops.ReleaseRequest{Actor: "alice", IssueID: "bd-1", ExpectedAssignee: &holder, Force: true}
// after
req := issueops.ReleaseRequest{Actor: "alice", IssueID: "bd-1", ExpectedAssignee: &holder} // drop Force, or drop ExpectedAssignee

if req.Force && req.ExpectedAssignee != nil {
    return fmt.Errorf("cannot combine Force with ExpectedAssignee")
}

func releaseModeIsValid(req issueops.ReleaseRequest) bool {
    return !(req.Force && req.ExpectedAssignee != nil)
}

if err := releaser.Release(ctx, req); err != nil {
    if errors.Is(err, issueops.ErrValidation) {
        return fmt.Errorf("conflicting release options: %w", err)
    }
    return err
}

When it happens

Trigger: Calling a Releaser with issueops.ReleaseRequest{Actor: set, IssueID: set, ExpectedAssignee: ptr("bob"), Force: true} — both the conditional-guard and the unconditional-force semantics requested at once.

Common situations: A CLI tool exposed both --force and --expected-assignee and passed both through without mutual exclusion; a caller merged two request-building code paths, one setting Force and one setting ExpectedAssignee.

Related errors

• release requires an actor to attribute it to
• release requires an issue id
• expected assignee must name a holder; there is no release of
• no store is open for this workspace
• not found

AI-assisted analysis of gastownhall/beads@71377f2769 (2026-08-30). Data as JSON: /api/errors/86a79c36769597a1. Report an issue: GitHub.