FIX: Removing warnings from recipe files displaying on regenerating CI

[josepmariapujol-unity]

Description

Recently discovered some warnings after regenerating CI from another PR.
Warnings:

Testing status & QA

Regenerating ci after changes no longer display warnings.

Overall Product Risks

Please rate the potential complexity and halo effect from low to high for the reviewers. Note down potential risks to specific Editor branches if any.

• Complexity: 1
• Halo Effect: 1

Comments to reviewers

Please describe any additional information such as what to focus on, or historical info for the reviewers.

Checklist

Before review:

• Changelog entry added.
  • Explains the change in Changed, Fixed, Added sections.
  • For API change contains an example snippet and/or migration example.
  • JIRA ticket linked, example (case %%). If it is a private issue, just add the case ID without a link.
  • Jira port for the next release set as "Resolved".
• Tests added/changed, if applicable.
  • Functional tests Area_CanDoX, Area_CanDoX_EvenIfYIsTheCase, Area_WhenIDoX_AndYHappens_ThisIsTheResult.
  • Performance tests.
  • Integration tests.
• Docs for new/changed API's.
  • Xmldoc cross references are set correctly.
  • Added explanation how the API works.
  • Usage code examples added.
  • The manual is updated, if needed.

During merge:

• Commit message for squash-merge is prefixed with one of the list:
  • NEW: ___.
  • FIX: ___.
  • DOCS: ___.
  • CHANGE: ___.
  • RELEASE: 1.1.0-preview.3.

[u-pr-agent]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪ Small, localized changes, but behavior shifts (null-handling and stricter enum parsing) warrant a quick validation pass across CI config permutations.

🏅 Score: 84 Changes improve robustness and error clarity, but new failure modes may surface if CI JSON contains missing/empty enum fields or if `GetFields()` includes non-enum members.

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Enum parsing GetEnumValue iterates type.GetFields() which can include non-value fields; ensure only actual enum members are considered (e.g., filter by field.IsLiteral) and confirm EnumMemberAttribute is consistently present for all expected values. public static TEnum GetEnumValue<TEnum>(string value) where TEnum : Enum { var type = typeof(TEnum); foreach (var field in type.GetFields()) { var attribute = field.GetCustomAttribute<EnumMemberAttribute>(); // Ensure both the attribute and its value match if (attribute?.Value == value) { var val = field.GetValue(null); if (val is TEnum result) { return result; } } } throw new ArgumentException($"Value '{value}' not found in {type.Name}."); New hard-fail JSON lookups now default missing fields to empty strings, which will cause GetEnumValue to throw; verify config always provides flavor/type for both build and run, or consider a safer fallback/error message that identifies the platform/key path. MobileBuildPlatforms.Add(platform, new Platform( new Agent(v?["build"]?["image"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty, Utilities.GetEnumValue<FlavorType>(v?["build"]?["flavor"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty), Utilities.GetEnumValue<ResourceType>(v?["build"]?["type"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty)), platform)); MobileTestPlatforms.Add(platform, new Platform( new Agent(v?["run"]?["image"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty, Utilities.GetEnumValue<FlavorType>(v?["run"]?["flavor"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty), Utilities.GetEnumValue<ResourceType>(v?["run"]?["type"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty), v?["run"]?["model"]?.ToString()), platform)); Condition match The BuildJobs detection now depends on job.Name being non-null; confirm that null names should be treated as non-build jobs, and consider whether the match should be more specific (case-sensitivity/substring collisions) for CI stability. if (job.Name != null && job.Name.Contains("BuildJobs")) break;

Update review

---

🤖 Helpful? Please react with 👍/👎 | Questions❓Please reach out in Slack #ask-u-pr-agent

[u-pr-agent]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Validate required config fields first Avoid passing string.Empty into enum parsing, since it converts missing/invalid JSON into a hard-to-diagnose ArgumentException. Validate that required fields exist and throw a targeted configuration error (or skip the platform) before calling GetEnumValue. Tools/CI/Settings/InputSystemSettings.cs [160-163] -new Agent(v?["build"]?["image"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty, - Utilities.GetEnumValue<FlavorType>(v?["build"]?["flavor"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty), - Utilities.GetEnumValue<ResourceType>(v?["build"]?["type"]?.ToString() ?? string.Empty)), +var build = v?["build"] as JObject ?? throw new InvalidDataException($"Missing 'build' section for '{k}'."); +var buildImage = build["image"]?.ToString() ?? throw new InvalidDataException($"Missing build.image for '{k}'."); +var buildFlavor = build["flavor"]?.ToString() ?? throw new InvalidDataException($"Missing build.flavor for '{k}'."); +var buildType = build["type"]?.ToString() ?? throw new InvalidDataException($"Missing build.type for '{k}'."); +new Agent(buildImage, + Utilities.GetEnumValue<FlavorType>(buildFlavor), + Utilities.GetEnumValue<ResourceType>(buildType)), + Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 __ Why: Passing string.Empty into Utilities.GetEnumValue<TEnum>() will reliably throw ArgumentException when config keys are missing, but the error will be less actionable than a targeted config validation error. Adding explicit validation for required JSON fields in ReadMobileConfig() improves debuggability and avoids masking config issues.	Medium
	Restrict to literal enum fields GetFields() returns non-enum fields as well, and field.GetValue(null) can be null (or not TEnum), which currently just falls through and hides the real mismatch. Filter to literal enum fields and return via Enum.Parse/Enum.ToObject to guarantee a correct TEnum when a match is found. Tools/CI/Recipes/Utilities/Utilities.cs [58-65] +if (!field.IsLiteral) + continue; + if (attribute?.Value == value) -{ - var val = field.GetValue(null); - if (val is TEnum result) - { - return result; - } -} + return (TEnum)Enum.ToObject(type, field.GetRawConstantValue()); Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: type.GetFields() includes non-literal fields (e.g., value__), so filtering with field.IsLiteral is a correctness/robustness improvement. Returning via Enum.ToObject is consistent with enum constant values, though the current val is TEnum result approach will typically work for literal fields anyway, so impact is moderate.	Low
More suggestions

---

🤖 Helpful? Please react with 👍/👎 | Questions❓Please reach out in Slack #ask-u-pr-agent

[codecov-github-com]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2319      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    77.96%   77.95%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          476      476              
  Lines        97443    97443              
===========================================
- Hits         75967    75961       -6     
- Misses       21476    21482       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
inputsystem_MacOS_2022.3_project	75.47% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.0	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.0_project	77.37% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.3	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.3_project	77.36% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.4	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.4_project	77.37% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.5	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_MacOS_6000.5_project	77.36% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
inputsystem_Ubuntu_2022.3	5.54% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_2022.3_project	75.26% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.0	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.0_project	77.16% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.3	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.3_project	77.17% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.4	5.33% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.4_project	77.17% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.5	5.33% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Ubuntu_6000.5_project	77.17% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
inputsystem_Windows_2022.3	5.54% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_2022.3_project	75.60% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
inputsystem_Windows_6000.0	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_6000.0_project	77.49% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
inputsystem_Windows_6000.3	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_6000.3_project	77.49% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_6000.4	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_6000.4_project	77.49% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
inputsystem_Windows_6000.5	5.32% <ø> (ø)
inputsystem_Windows_6000.5_project	77.49% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.