Hey maintainers! 👋 I just opened PR #6522 to address an issue where soft-deactivated organization members (set to

isActive = false

via PATCH) were still being evaluated as active by the licensing validation queries in

license-dal.ts

. This was causing false-positive "max members" errors for users trying to invite new team members after offboarding old ones. The patch applies the explicit

isActive: true

filtering constraints to align the seat-checking logic with

org-dal.ts

. Would love a quick review when you get a chance! Link: https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6522

Gentle ping on PR #6139 — fixes incorrect TTL fallback in

update*Auth

validation across 8 services. The checks that have run are passing, and I'd appreciate a look when someone has a moment. :)

My first PR for infisical 😁 It implements an improvement to the CLI that I’ve wanted for ages - the ability to configure and use the infisical API URL in `.infiscal.json`I’m eagerly looking forward to any feedback.

Hello, my first PR for Infisical too, to fix a small annoying issue where someone is putting a log of garbage in the logs https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6608 Feedback is welcome I have other ongoing contribution ideas to follow 😄

Hello @Sheen Santos Capadngan i have worked this last days to implement it https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6610 can you tell me what i can do to help you to merge it it will be a killer feature for our customers thanks Thread in Slack Conversation

Hey team, I've been investigating a billing count bug (project count always shows +1 in Usage & Billing). Root cause is

countOfOrgProjects

counting all project types including auto-provisioned ones like

CertificateManager

that users never explicitly create. Quick question before I open a PR: should the fix exclude internal project types (

CertificateManager

,

SSH

,

AI

) from

countOfOrgProjects

, or is there a different intended approach? Happy to move fast once I know the right direction.

https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6777 I just opened my first PR #6777 to fix a duplicate user bug in the SCIM

GET /Users

endpoint. Would appreciate a review when someone gets a chance. Thanks!

Hey team! I've got two PRs open and would love a review when you get a chance: 1. fix: remove hooks.slack.com hostname restriction for Slack-type webhooks — https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6813 (Allows Mattermost and other Slack-compatible services to use the Slack webhook type) 2. fix(scim): deduplicate users in SCIM list response and fix totalResults count — https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6777 Happy to make any changes needed. Thanks!

Hi! I noticed some layout shift on the Networking page around the gateway sub-tabs and opened a small PR for it: https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/6838 The fix migrates the Gateways/Relays cards toward the v3 patterns already used by Secret Sharing and Machine Identities. I included before/after recordings in the PR. Happy to adjust anything to better match the direction of the v3 migration.

Hey team, regarding PR #6813 — GitGuardian is flagging a "Generic Password" in .env.example (commit 77d58ef) but this appears to be a pre-existing placeholder that was pulled in during the merge with upstream, not something introduced by my changes. Happy to investigate further if needed, but wanted to flag it in case it blocks the review.

Hey, checking in on a few PRs from a couple weeks back (#6813, #6777, and two others) that haven't had maintainer eyes yet. No rush if the queue is just long right now — if it'd help, I'm also happy to help triage other open issues or review other community PRs in the meantime while these sit, if that's useful to you all.

Hi guys. I've opened an issue and a pull request last month regarding a weird behavior on

InfisicalPushSecret

on the kubernetes operator. @Matheus Nogueira i saw you on recent repo activity. Can you take a look at it? Issue and PR

Hey team, My 2 PRs are pending for review, would be great if anyone reviews them whenever feasible github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7030 github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7046

Hey @Matheus Nogueira, hope it's alright to ask here — I've had two PRs open for a couple weeks now that haven't gotten a look yet: #6813 and #6865. Would really appreciate it if you or anyone on the team could take a pass when you get a chance!

Hi guys, could someone please review this small PR? It fixes the broken Arch Linux CLI installation. github.com/Infisical/cli/pull/287

Hey team, I've just started exploring the codebase for contributions and noticed a couple of UI stuff that looks off. I've raised a couple of PRs fixing them. All of them are tiny (also attached video of before & after), would really appreciate a review 😄 • github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7109 • github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7110 • github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7114

Hi Team i Found these issue's while going thru the project and rasied PR's with Fixes kindly review them Please 1. Issue : github.com/Infisical/infisical/issues/6971 • PR : github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7027 2. Issue : github.com/Infisical/infisical/issues/7127 • PR :github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7128 3. Issue : github.com/Infisical/infisical/issues/7143 • PR : github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7144 Looking for the Feedback ! Thankyou So much !!

I noticed people were asking for Gitea sync, so I just implemented one here - github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7152, would love to address team's feedback and get this forward 😄 (Added docs and attached video of a sample E2E flow).

Small PR, just a signup UI Issue: github.com/Infisical/infisical/issues/7166 github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7165 So close to being 7166/7166 🫠

wondering if Infisical wants to support secp256k1? i could do a PR :) github.com/Infisical/infisical/discussions/7192

Hi everyone! I just wanted to ask if our PRs are being reviewed. I raised three PRs last week, but I haven't received any feedback on them yet. Any update, help, or insight would be greatly appreciated. It would help us keep making progress and continue improving the project. Thanks!

Hi Team, I would like to report an issue regarding contribution ethics. There is a contributor, @jaydeep-pipaliya, who repeatedly submits PRs for issues that have already been raised by someone else. This has happened to me three times now. In the latest case, I created the issue and was waiting for the maintainers to respond before proceeding. Instead of checking whether the issue was already being discussed or asking if someone was already working on it, @jaydeep-pipaliya directly opened a PR for the same issue. Even if issues are not formally assigned, I believe it is good open-source etiquette to respect the person who identified and reported the issue. At the very least, contributors should check for existing discussions or ask before starting work on an issue that has just been reported by someone else. I have noticed @*jaydeep-pipaliya doing* the same behavior in several other issues as well, where PRs are opened without considering whether the original reporter is already working on a fix. I kindly request the maintainers to review this situation and, if appropriate, clarify the project's expectations around contribution etiquette so that everyone has a fair opportunity to contribute. Thankyou Looking forward to have aa positive response !! cc @Akhil Mohan @Jake (Infisical) @Carlos Monastyrski @Vlad (Infisical) Please team a very humble request to have a look on this

Hi @Jake (Infisical) Can you please look into the PR's : github.com/Infisical/infisical/pulls/… Its been more than 3 weeks , or if you could tell me how often we should contribute ? Looking forward it Thank you !!

Hi team! Last week I opened a PR adding Portainer support (app connection + secret sync): https://github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7670 CI is green and I've addressed all the review feedback so far. Would appreciate a review when someone has a chance. Thanks!

Hi @Jake (Infisical) Can you take a look at my PR when you get a chance? github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7670 It's been open since Aug 15. I rebased it on main today so the conflict is gone and it's mergeable again. Also the github actions on it are all stuck at "action_required" and have never run since I opened it. Could someone approve the workflow run? I ran the checks locally and they pass, but it'd be better to see it green on the PR. I know the team is busy so no rush on the review. Just want to make sure it didn't get lost. Thanks!

Hi team, I opened a fix for #7822 and would love a review when someone has a moment: github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/8339 Behind cloudflared, every token refresh was returning a 500, so users got sent back to the login page on each reload. cloudflared forwards the empty refresh POST as a chunked body with no Content-Type, and Fastify rejects it. The error handler also turned Fastify's own 4xx errors into generic 500s, which hid the real cause. alekc(github username), who reported the issue, confirmed the fix on his Cloudflare and Traefik setup, and akshatgg(github username) verified it on a separate dev stack. The PR includes tests, and all checks are passing.

Hey team! 👋 I recently opened PR #8226 on Infisical to fix the broken self-hosting documentation link: 🔗 github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/8226 Would love a quick review when you get a moment! Also looking forward to picking up more backend / secrets management issues to contribute to next. Happy to help! 🙌

Hey team! I’ve opened a few PRs for Infisical and would appreciate a review when someone gets a chance: github.com/Infisical/infisical/pulls/vedgharat One of my PRs has been awaiting review since August 12, so I wanted to follow up in case it got missed. I’m happy to address any feedback or make changes needed to get them merged. Thanks for your time!

github.com/Infisical/infisical/pull/7194 this could've saved us a lot of pain when dealing with the Railway leak, please allow us to import our private keys into Infisical.