Skip to content

feat: API regeneration: release-2026-05-11.08-02-35#3170

Merged
jskeet merged 46 commits into
mainfrom
release-2026-05-11.08-02-35
May 11, 2026
Merged

feat: API regeneration: release-2026-05-11.08-02-35#3170
jskeet merged 46 commits into
mainfrom
release-2026-05-11.08-02-35

Conversation

@amanda-tarafa
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Changes in this PR will be published to Nuget on the next release cycle.

@amanda-tarafa amanda-tarafa requested a review from a team as a code owner May 11, 2026 08:07
@jskeet jskeet merged commit 29d8657 into main May 11, 2026
6 checks passed
@jskeet jskeet deleted the release-2026-05-11.08-02-35 branch May 11, 2026 08:11
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request updates multiple Google Cloud discovery JSON files and their corresponding generated C# client libraries, incorporating various API schema enhancements, new fields, and documentation updates. The reviewer identified several issues in the documentation strings, specifically recommending the removal of internal linting instructions and metadata leaks, as well as correcting misleading deprecation messages that reference non-existent fields.

"parameters": {
"name": {
"description": "Required. The compilation result's name.",
"description": "Required. The compilation result's name. LINT.ThenChange(//depot/google3/google/cloud/dataform/v2main/data_pipelines.proto:GetCompilationResultRequest)",
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The API descriptions in this file (and dataform.v1beta1.json) contain internal Google linting instructions and file paths (e.g., LINT.ThenChange(...)). These internal implementation details should be stripped before publishing the discovery document and generating client libraries, as they clutter the public documentation and provide no value to external users.

Suggested change
"description": "Required. The compilation result's name. LINT.ThenChange(//depot/google3/google/cloud/dataform/v2main/data_pipelines.proto:GetCompilationResultRequest)",
"description": "Required. The compilation result's name.",

},
"RolloutSequence": {
"description": "RolloutSequence defines the desired order of upgrades.",
"description": "RolloutSequence defines the desired order of upgrades. Next ID: 20",
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The description for RolloutSequence contains an internal metadata leak: Next ID: 20. This appears to be a comment from the source protobuf definition that was inadvertently included in the public API description.

Suggested change
"description": "RolloutSequence defines the desired order of upgrades. Next ID: 20",
"description": "RolloutSequence defines the desired order of upgrades.",

"target": {
"description": "Required. The target variant or allocation to apply if the condition is met. This should match the name of a defined variant or allocation's ID.",
"deprecated": true,
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `rule_target` instead. The target variant or allocation to apply if the condition is met. This should match the name of a defined variant or allocation's ID.",
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The deprecation message for the target field refers to a non-existent field rule_target. It is likely that rule_target is the name of a oneof in the underlying protobuf, but since it's not exposed in the discovery document, this message is misleading for API consumers. The message should be updated to refer to the actual replacement fields, such as allocationId or variantId.

Suggested change
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `rule_target` instead. The target variant or allocation to apply if the condition is met. This should match the name of a defined variant or allocation's ID.",
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `allocationId` or `variantId` instead. The target variant or allocation to apply if the condition is met. This should match the name of a defined variant or allocation's ID.",

"defaultTarget": {
"description": "Required. Default variant or allocation of the flag.",
"deprecated": true,
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `base_target` instead. Default variant or allocation of the flag.",
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

Similar to the target field, the deprecation message for defaultTarget refers to a non-existent field base_target. It should likely refer to defaultAllocation or defaultVariant.

Suggested change
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `base_target` instead. Default variant or allocation of the flag.",
"description": "Optional. Deprecated: Use `defaultAllocation` or `defaultVariant` instead. Default variant or allocation of the flag.",

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants