fix(openapi): Add missing response fields returned by the live API#2561
Conversation
The build list endpoint returns buildNumber, but it was missing from the BuildShort schema. As a result, generated clients (e.g. Pydantic models in apify-client-python) treated it as an undeclared extra field, exposing it only under the camelCase name and breaking the snake_case convention.
vdusek
added
t-tooling
|
🗑️ Preview for this PR was deleted. |
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in A companion PR has been opened in
|
…ests Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
vdusek
changed the title
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
…s fields CI integration tests failed because: - the API returns sourceType=SOURCE_CODE which is not in VersionSourceType enum - DatasetStats list responses omit storageBytes (only inflatedBytes/readCount/writeCount are returned) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
…okSummary - VersionSourceType: add SOURCE_CODE value the API actually returns (was producing literal_error in client validation) - WebhookDispatch.webhook: extract inline object to a top-level WebhookDispatchWebhookSummary schema so codegen doesn't synthesize a Webhook1 name that collides with the Webhook schema Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
vdusek
changed the title
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
|
@fnesveda Could you please verify the version regexes ( |
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
fnesveda
left a comment
fnesveda
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the version number always has to be three numbers, never two, otherwise looks good
|
Important Action required — @vdusek please coordinate this docs PR with the Python API client PR linked below. Because this PR modifies the OpenAPI specification, the generated models in The companion
|
This PR updates the auto-generated Pydantic models and TypedDicts based on OpenAPI specification changes in [apify-docs PR #2561](apify/apify-docs#2561). --------- Co-authored-by: Vlada Dusek <v.dusek96@gmail.com>
4 participants
Align OpenAPI schemas with what the live Apify API actually returns, so the generated
apify-client-pythonPydantic models declare every documented field. Originally reported as apify-client-python#811 forbuildNumberonBuildShort; broadened after running the Python integration suite with Pydanticextra='forbid'to surface the full gap across ~20 schemas (Actor, Build, KVS, Run, Schedule, Webhook, User plan/limits, store listings, …).