refactor(spec)!: Combine `TaskPushNotificationConfig` and `PushNotificationConfig` by herczyn · Pull Request #1500 · a2aproject/A2A

herczyn · 2026-02-18T08:23:14Z

this PR:

removes CreateTaskPushNotificationConfigRequest and replace it with TaskPushNotificationConfig (same fields).
flattend TaskPushNotificationConfig and PushNotificationConfig removing the latter
puts TaskPushNotificationConfig in SendMessageConfig instead of the removed PushNotificationConfig

why: more readable structure, with less messages but with the same possibilities

Release-As: 1.0.0

gemini-code-assist · 2026-02-18T08:23:29Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @herczyn, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refactors the protobuf definitions related to push notification configurations to enhance readability and reduce message complexity. By consolidating related fields and removing redundant request messages, the changes aim to provide a more straightforward and flattened structure for managing task-specific push notifications, while maintaining the same functional capabilities.

Highlights

API Request Simplification: The CreateTaskPushNotificationConfigRequest message has been removed and its functionality merged directly into TaskPushNotificationConfig, simplifying the API for creating push notification configurations.
Configuration Message Flattening: The PushNotificationConfig message has been eliminated, and its fields have been directly integrated into TaskPushNotificationConfig, reducing message nesting and improving clarity.
Updated Message Configuration: The SendMessageConfiguration now directly references TaskPushNotificationConfig instead of the removed PushNotificationConfig, streamlining the structure for sending messages with push notification settings.

Changelog

specification/a2a.proto
- Updated the CreateTaskPushNotificationConfig RPC method to directly accept TaskPushNotificationConfig as its request parameter.
- Replaced the push_notification_config field with task_push_notification_config in the SendMessageConfiguration message.
- Removed the PushNotificationConfig message definition.
- Flattened the TaskPushNotificationConfig message by embedding the fields previously contained within PushNotificationConfig directly into it.
- Deleted the CreateTaskPushNotificationConfigRequest message definition.

Activity

No human activity has occurred on this pull request yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request refactors the push notification configuration messages to simplify the structure by removing PushNotificationConfig and CreateTaskPushNotificationConfigRequest. While the goal of simplification is good, the changes have introduced some critical inconsistencies in the CreateTaskPushNotificationConfig RPC definition and a problematic REQUIRED constraint on the task_id field. My review includes suggestions to fix these issues to ensure the protocol definition is valid and consistent.

specification/a2a.proto

Tehsmash

LGTM, but its hitting an AIP linter issue. We do have the correct comment in place for ignoring AIP-133 but it doesn't seem to be applying it properly maybe because the extra comment line inbetween?

holtskinner · 2026-02-18T15:55:53Z

@gemini-code-assist review

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request refactors the A2A protocol by combining TaskPushNotificationConfig and PushNotificationConfig messages, and removing CreateTaskPushNotificationConfigRequest. This simplifies the API structure and improves readability as described in the PR description. The changes are generally well-aligned with the stated objective, with one comment modified to include a check against authentication best practices.

specification/a2a.proto

herczyn · 2026-02-18T15:59:14Z

/vote

git-vote · 2026-02-18T15:59:18Z

Vote created

@herczyn has called for a vote on refactor(spec)!: Combine TaskPushNotificationConfigandPushNotificationConfig`` (#1500).

The members of the following teams have binding votes:

Team
@a2aproject/a2a-tsc

Non-binding votes are also appreciated as a sign of support!

How to vote

You can cast your vote by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor	Against	Abstain
👍	👎	👀

Please note that voting for multiple options is not allowed and those votes won't be counted.

The vote will be open for 11months 29days 3h 50m 24s. It will pass if at least 51% of the users with binding votes vote In favor 👍. Once it's closed, results will be published here as a new comment.

amye · 2026-02-19T00:05:07Z

@a2aproject/a2a-tsc - ping for review

git-vote · 2026-02-19T16:11:20Z

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	0	0	7

Binding votes (0)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@muscariello	Pending
@darrelmiller	Pending
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending
@spetschulatSFDC	Pending

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-20T16:12:07Z

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	0	0	7

Binding votes (0)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@muscariello	Pending
@darrelmiller	Pending
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending
@spetschulatSFDC	Pending

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-21T16:13:34Z

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	0	0	7

Binding votes (0)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@muscariello	Pending
@darrelmiller	Pending
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending
@spetschulatSFDC	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-22T16:42:07Z

Vote status

So far 14.29% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
1	0	0	6

Binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
@darrelmiller	Pending
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending
@spetschulatSFDC	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-23T16:43:35Z

Vote status

So far 14.29% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
1	0	0	6

Binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
@darrelmiller	Pending
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending
@spetschulatSFDC	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

specification/a2a.proto

darrelmiller · 2026-02-24T15:46:47Z

I'm for this change in principle, I just want to get clarity on the issue around the "required" for taskId

git-vote · 2026-02-24T17:12:08Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-25T17:13:35Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-26T17:42:08Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-27T17:43:35Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-02-28T18:12:08Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-03-01T18:13:36Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-03-02T18:42:09Z

Vote status

So far 42.86% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	4

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00
@geneknit	Pending
@hughesthe1st	Pending
@ToddSegal	Pending
@SivaNSAP	Pending

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

git-vote · 2026-03-03T12:42:34Z

Vote closed

The vote passed! 🎉

57.14% of the users with binding vote were in favor and 0.00% were against (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	3

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@ToddSegal	In favor	2026-03-02 21:50:39.0 +00:00:00
@darrelmiller	In favor	2026-02-24 17:04:56.0 +00:00:00
@muscariello	In favor	2026-02-21 22:31:04.0 +00:00:00
@spetschulatSFDC	In favor	2026-02-24 17:05:10.0 +00:00:00

Non-binding votes (2)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@herczyn	In favor	2026-02-18 16:03:56.0 +00:00:00
@holtskinner	In favor	2026-02-20 17:08:51.0 +00:00:00

Cleanup task/pushnotification configs.

62ac523

herczyn requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2026 08:23

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

specification/a2a.proto Show resolved Hide resolved

specification/a2a.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

specification/a2a.proto Show resolved Hide resolved

Tehsmash reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

herczyn added the no-issue label Feb 18, 2026

fix pi linter

6e1b22d

holtskinner changed the title ~~fix(spec)!: Clean up TaskPushNotificationConfig and PushNotificationConfig.~~ refactor(spec)!: Combine TaskPushNotificationConfig and PushNotificationConfig Feb 18, 2026

holtskinner approved these changes Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

herczyn added the TSC Review To be reviewed by the Technical Steering Committee label Feb 18, 2026

github-project-automation bot added this to TSC Review Feb 18, 2026

github-project-automation bot moved this to Backlog in TSC Review Feb 18, 2026

git-vote bot added gitvote gitvote/open labels Feb 18, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into main

8382d63

darrelmiller reviewed Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

specification/a2a.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

remove required

7ffa7ab

git-vote bot added gitvote/closed gitvote/passed and removed gitvote/open labels Mar 3, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into main

4183127

darrelmiller approved these changes Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

herczyn merged commit d1ed0da into a2aproject:main Mar 3, 2026
7 checks passed

github-project-automation bot moved this from Backlog to Done in TSC Review Mar 3, 2026

a2a-bot mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

chore(main): release 1.0.0 #1221

Open

Conversation

herczyn commented Feb 18, 2026 • edited by holtskinner Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Feb 18, 2026

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Tehsmash left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

holtskinner commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

herczyn commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 18, 2026

Vote created

How to vote

Uh oh!

amye commented Feb 19, 2026

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 19, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (0)

Non-binding votes (1)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 20, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (0)

Non-binding votes (1)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 21, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (0)

Non-binding votes (2)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 22, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (1)

Non-binding votes (2)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 23, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (1)

Non-binding votes (2)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

darrelmiller commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 24, 2026

Vote status

Summary

Binding votes (3)

Non-binding votes (2)

Uh oh!

git-vote bot commented Feb 25, 2026

herczyn commented Feb 18, 2026 •

edited by holtskinner

Loading