It might make sense to add type for ValueType?

It might make sense to add type for ValueType?

I think it would make sense. However, as I see it, the pattern in the library is to use similar enum-like fields as plain strings with documentation comments, such as:

But if you’re okay with adding types, I could add constants like:

const (
      PropertyValueTypeString      = "string"
      PropertyValueTypeSingleSelect = "single_select"
      PropertyValueTypeMultiSelect  = "multi_select"
      PropertyValueTypeTrueFalse    = "true_false"
      PropertyValueTypeURL          = "url"
  )

And we can decide later if we want to add similar enums for other fields across the library.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.48%. Comparing base (07ddcd9) to head (1356164).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3879   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.48%   92.48%           
=======================================
  Files         200      200           
  Lines       14564    14564           
=======================================
  Hits        13469    13469           
  Misses        895      895           
  Partials      200      200           

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

@IrvingMg this pattern is used elsewhere here.

@IrvingMg this pattern is used elsewhere here.

I’ve added the constants. I considered using a type alias, but I believe that would be a breaking change, and I wasn’t sure we wanted to introduce one.

Thank you, @alexandear!
Merging.