Skip to content

chore: regenerate models from apify/apify-docs#3087 - #1151

Closed
vdusek wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
chore/models-from-apify-docs-3087
Closed

vdusek wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
chore/models-from-apify-docs-3087

Conversation

@vdusek

@vdusek vdusek commented Oct 19, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Preview of the models generated from apify/apify-docs#3087, so we can see what that spec change does to the client before it merges. Not meant to be merged: the models come from a locally bundled spec, and the nightly regeneration will produce the real ones once the docs PR is deployed.

The baseline spec (the docs PR's merge base) reproduces master's models exactly, so the whole diff comes from that PR. The three resource clients that used CreateOrUpdateVersionRequest now use CreateVersionRequest or UpdateVersionRequest.

The docs PR leaves out value patterns and length limits on purpose, because the client would enforce them locally. The only new client-side checks are the required version_number and source_type on CreateVersionRequest, the required name and value on EnvVarRequest, and at least one item in versions.

✍️ Drafted by Claude Code

@vdusek vdusek added adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team. labels Oct 19, 2026
@vdusek vdusek self-assigned this Oct 19, 2026
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.53%. Comparing base (a4b6975) to head (cba2f3b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1151      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.49%   95.53%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          61       61              
  Lines        5947     5975      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         5679     5708      +29     
+ Misses        268      267       -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 90.59% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit 89.02% <92.98%> (+0.06%) ⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

vdusek added a commit to apify/apify-docs that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2026
Aligns the Actor, version, env var and schedule request schemas with
what the API accepts, checked against apify-core and the live API.
`CreateActorRequest` gets `actorPermissionLevel` and
`CreateOrUpdateScheduleRequest` gets `notifications`, which now has its
own `ScheduleNotifications` schema. Fields drop `null` where the API
rejects it, or where a stored `null` breaks later requests. `versions`
needs at least one item.

`CreateOrUpdateVersionRequest` is split into `CreateVersionRequest`,
which requires `versionNumber` and `sourceType`, and
`UpdateVersionRequest`, where everything stays optional. Both take a new
`WritableVersionSourceType` enum without `SOURCE_CODE`, which the API
rejects. `EnvVarRequest` is now a standalone schema that requires `name`
and `value`. The previous `allOf` over `EnvVar` made the generated
client report an invalid override (apify/apify-client-python#1150).

Value patterns and length limits are left out on purpose:
apify-client-python turns them into local validation that would reject
input before the API sees it. apify/apify-client-python#1151 previews
the regenerated models. Until they're regenerated,
apify/apify-client-python#1144 adds the missing fields to the request
body by hand.

*✍️ Drafted by Claude Code*
@vdusek

vdusek commented Oct 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

closing as this was only tmp draft for review changes in apify-docs

@vdusek vdusek closed this Oct 19, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants