feat(structures): add Application structure

[keston-dev]

This PR will add the Application API structure, per Discord's API documentation, as well as the ApplicationFlagsBitField to /bitfields.

Mentioning #10981 for visibility.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
discord-js	Skipped		Feb 21, 2026 5:13pm
discord-js-guide	Skipped		Feb 21, 2026 5:13pm

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

New Application class added that models a Discord application with comprehensive read-only access to APIApplication data via public getters. Includes new ApplicationFlagsBitField utility class for handling application flags. Both classes are exported through their respective index modules.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Application Structure packages/structures/src/application/Application.ts	New Application class extending Structure<APIApplication, Omitted> with 30+ public getters mapping to APIApplication fields (id, name, icon, description, bot properties, URLs, flags, counts, etc.). Flags getter returns ApplicationFlagsBitField instance or null. Constructor accepts Partialize<APIApplication, Omitted>.
Application Module Exports packages/structures/src/application/index.ts	Re-exports all exports from ./Application.js to make the Application class available through the module index.
Application Flags BitField packages/structures/src/bitfields/ApplicationFlagsBitField.ts	New ApplicationFlagsBitField class extending BitField<keyof ApplicationFlags>. Exposes static Flags member set to ApplicationFlags enum. Overrides toJSON() to delegate to base implementation.
BitField Module Exports packages/structures/src/bitfields/index.ts	Re-exports ApplicationFlagsBitField from the bitfields index module alongside existing bitfield exports.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a new Application structure class to the structures package.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is relevant and explains what is being added (Application API structure and ApplicationFlagsBitField) with a reference to Discord's API documentation.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 4

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@packages/structures/src/application/Application.ts`:
- Around line 165-168: The getter Application.prototype.flags treats
this[kData].flags as missing when it's 0 due to a truthy check; change the check
in the get flags accessor to use a nullish check (e.g., compare against
null/undefined) so that zero is preserved and still returns new
ApplicationFlagsBitField(this[kData].flags as ApplicationFlags) instead of null;
update the logic in the get flags method that references this[kData].flags and
ApplicationFlagsBitField to perform the null/undefined check.
- Around line 220-224: The getter name eventsWebhookStatus is inconsistent with
eventWebhooksURL / eventWebhooksTypes and the API field event_webhooks_status;
rename the getter to eventWebhooksStatus (and update any references) so it
matches the camelCase convention, then update related typings, exports, and
documentation where eventsWebhookStatus is used to eventWebhooksStatus to keep
names consistent (search for eventsWebhookStatus, eventWebhooksURL,
eventWebhooksTypes and the kData access of event_webhooks_status to apply the
change).

In `@packages/structures/src/bitfields/ApplicationFlagsBitField.ts`:
- Around line 13-15: The toJSON override in ApplicationFlagsBitField is forcing
string serialization by calling super.toJSON(true); change it to use the base
numeric serialization (call super.toJSON() without the true flag) so numeric
bitflags are preserved, unless you intentionally want string output—in which
case update typings/docs to reflect string-returning toJSON; target the
ApplicationFlagsBitField class and its toJSON method and remove the true
argument from the super call.
- Around line 7-11: The implementation of ApplicationFlagsBitField uses the
wrong type parameter—change the extends clause from BitField<keyof
ApplicationFlags> to BitField<keyof typeof ApplicationFlags> to match the
exported ApplicationFlagsString typing; update the same pattern for
ChannelFlagsBitField, MessageFlagsBitField, and AttachmentFlagsBitField so all
use keyof typeof <FlagName> and ensure the static Flags = ApplicationFlags (and
respective Flags) remain unchanged.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 838cd2d and 122c5fb.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• packages/structures/src/application/Application.ts
• packages/structures/src/application/index.ts
• packages/structures/src/bitfields/ApplicationFlagsBitField.ts
• packages/structures/src/bitfields/index.ts

🧰 Additional context used

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

packages/structures/src/bitfields/ApplicationFlagsBitField.ts (1)

packages/discord.js/typings/index.d.ts (2)

• BitField (663-680)
• ApplicationFlagsBitField (480-483)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

packages/structures/src/bitfields/index.ts (1)

3-3: LGTM: export added for ApplicationFlagsBitField

packages/structures/src/application/index.ts (1)

1-1: LGTM: Application export added

_{✏️ Tip: You can disable this entire section by setting review_details to false in your review settings.}

[AsadHumayun]

Not a maintainer, just giving some suggestions based on the conventions I've seen so far in other structures and my own PRs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 70 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 31.46%. Comparing base (c71228a) to head (05f5d2b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/structures/src/application/Application.ts	0.00%	67 Missing ⚠️
...ructures/src/bitfields/ApplicationFlagsBitField.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #11393      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   31.62%   31.46%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         385      387       +2     
  Lines       13918    13988      +70     
  Branches     1096     1101       +5     
==========================================
  Hits         4401     4401              
- Misses       9383     9453      +70     
  Partials      134      134              

Flag	Coverage Δ
structures	34.00% <0.00%> (-1.67%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 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.

Resolved

[ckohen]

do we expose directly as array for this (general question)