chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas #52

Merged

stack72 merged 1 commit from automated/regenerate-models into main 2026-06-15 19:38:30 +00:00

Conversation 3 Commits 1 Files changed 25 +2283 -77

stack72 commented 2026-06-13 06:13:05 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

Summary

Automated regeneration of extension models from upstream provider schemas.

Schema Sources

• AWS: CloudFormation Resource Schema
• GCP: Google Discovery Documents
• Hetzner: Hetzner Cloud OpenAPI spec
• DigitalOcean: DigitalOcean OpenAPI spec

Review Notes

• Files under model/ are auto-generated — review the manifest.yaml diffs for version changes
• CalVer versioning with content-based change detection ensures versions only bump when content changes
• Publishing happens automatically when this PR is merged (via the publish workflow)

## Summary Automated regeneration of extension models from upstream provider schemas. ### Schema Sources - **AWS**: CloudFormation Resource Schema - **GCP**: Google Discovery Documents - **Hetzner**: Hetzner Cloud OpenAPI spec - **DigitalOcean**: DigitalOcean OpenAPI spec ### Review Notes - Files under `model/` are auto-generated — review the `manifest.yaml` diffs for version changes - CalVer versioning with content-based change detection ensures versions only bump when content changes - Publishing happens automatically when this PR is merged (via the publish workflow)

stack72 commented 2026-06-13 06:24:49 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

Code Review

Blocking Issues

1. Model files modified with substantive schema changes but no corresponding codegen/ changes.

   Every file in this PR lives under model/, and the changes go well beyond version/upgrade entries:

   • model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/configuration_bundle.ts — entirely new file with full schema definitions
   • model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/online_evaluation_config.ts — new InsightSchema and ClusteringConfig fields added; Evaluators changed from required to optional
   • model/gcp/contactcenterinsights/extensions/models/conversations.ts — description text changed ("Input only." → "Optional.")
   • model/gcp/gkehub/extensions/models/features.ts — mesh field removed from GlobalArgsSchema, InputsSchema, and StateSchema
   • model/gcp/gkehub/extensions/models/memberships_features.ts — five enum values removed from two locations
   • model/gcp/threatintelligence/extensions/models/alerts.ts / findings.ts — targetTechnology nested object added to StateSchema
   • model/gcp/threatintelligence/extensions/models/configurations.ts / configurations_revisions.ts — technologyWatchlist nested object added to StateSchema

   Per CLAUDE.md: "Never hand-edit files under model/. They are auto-generated. Fix the codegen pipeline in codegen/<provider>/ and regenerate instead." The review criteria additionally state that model changes beyond version/upgrade entries are only legitimate when codegen/ changes are present (git diff origin/main...HEAD --name-only shows zero files outside model/).

   The commit message ("regenerate models from upstream schemas") suggests the intent was to re-run the generator against updated upstream schemas rather than to hand-edit. If that is the case — i.e., deno task fetch-schema:* and deno task generate:* were run and these are the correct outputs — the PR description should document that, and the reviewer process should be updated to recognise upstream-schema-only regenerations as a third legitimate case. Until that policy is clarified, this PR cannot be merged as-is under the current rules.

   Resolution: Confirm the files were produced by running the codegen tasks (not hand-edited). If so, add evidence to the PR description (e.g., the fetch + generate commands run, or CI artefacts) and align with the maintainers on whether this regeneration pattern is intended to bypass the "codegen/ must also change" gate.

Suggestions

None.

## Code Review ### Blocking Issues 1. **Model files modified with substantive schema changes but no corresponding `codegen/` changes.** Every file in this PR lives under `model/`, and the changes go well beyond version/upgrade entries: - `model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/configuration_bundle.ts` — entirely new file with full schema definitions - `model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/online_evaluation_config.ts` — new `InsightSchema` and `ClusteringConfig` fields added; `Evaluators` changed from required to optional - `model/gcp/contactcenterinsights/extensions/models/conversations.ts` — description text changed ("Input only." → "Optional.") - `model/gcp/gkehub/extensions/models/features.ts` — `mesh` field removed from `GlobalArgsSchema`, `InputsSchema`, and `StateSchema` - `model/gcp/gkehub/extensions/models/memberships_features.ts` — five enum values removed from two locations - `model/gcp/threatintelligence/extensions/models/alerts.ts` / `findings.ts` — `targetTechnology` nested object added to `StateSchema` - `model/gcp/threatintelligence/extensions/models/configurations.ts` / `configurations_revisions.ts` — `technologyWatchlist` nested object added to `StateSchema` Per CLAUDE.md: *"Never hand-edit files under `model/`. They are auto-generated. Fix the codegen pipeline in `codegen/<provider>/` and regenerate instead."* The review criteria additionally state that model changes beyond version/upgrade entries are only legitimate when `codegen/` changes are present (`git diff origin/main...HEAD --name-only` shows zero files outside `model/`). The commit message ("regenerate models from upstream schemas") suggests the intent was to re-run the generator against updated upstream schemas rather than to hand-edit. If that is the case — i.e., `deno task fetch-schema:*` and `deno task generate:*` were run and these are the correct outputs — the PR description should document that, and the reviewer process should be updated to recognise upstream-schema-only regenerations as a third legitimate case. Until that policy is clarified, this PR cannot be merged as-is under the current rules. **Resolution:** Confirm the files were produced by running the codegen tasks (not hand-edited). If so, add evidence to the PR description (e.g., the fetch + generate commands run, or CI artefacts) and align with the maintainers on whether this regeneration pattern is intended to bypass the "codegen/ must also change" gate. ### Suggestions _None._

stack72 force-pushed automated/regenerate-models from d1b8526327 to 0029cc9e92 2026-06-14 06:13:07 +00:00 Compare

stack72 commented 2026-06-14 06:23:49 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

Code Review

Blocking Issues

1. Model files changed without corresponding codegen/ changes.
   All 19 changed files are under model/, and none are under codegen/. Several files contain substantial content changes beyond version/upgrade entries:

   • New model files added: configuration_bundle.ts (427 lines), contentpolicies.ts (1515 lines)
   • Updated model content in: online_evaluation_config.ts, aiguardrail.ts, cachedcontents.ts, conversations.ts, features.ts, memberships_features.ts, alerts.ts, configurations.ts, configurations_revisions.ts, findings.ts

   Per review policy, model files may change without codegen/ changes only in two legitimate cases: (1) codegen regeneration where codegen/ also changes, or (2) version-only bumps via bump-versions where only version, upgrades, and manifest entries change. This PR fits neither case.

   Note for maintainers: This PR follows the same "chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas" pattern as recently merged #51, which also had only model/ changes and no codegen/ changes. If this is an established automated regeneration workflow (running the unchanged codegen pipeline against updated upstream schemas), the review policy may need to be updated to document this as a third legitimate case. If that is the intent here and maintainers can confirm the files were produced by running the codegen pipeline unmodified, this issue can be waived.

Suggestions

None.

## Code Review ### Blocking Issues 1. **Model files changed without corresponding codegen/ changes.** All 19 changed files are under `model/`, and none are under `codegen/`. Several files contain substantial content changes beyond version/upgrade entries: - New model files added: `configuration_bundle.ts` (427 lines), `contentpolicies.ts` (1515 lines) - Updated model content in: `online_evaluation_config.ts`, `aiguardrail.ts`, `cachedcontents.ts`, `conversations.ts`, `features.ts`, `memberships_features.ts`, `alerts.ts`, `configurations.ts`, `configurations_revisions.ts`, `findings.ts` Per review policy, model files may change without codegen/ changes only in two legitimate cases: (1) codegen regeneration where `codegen/` also changes, or (2) version-only bumps via `bump-versions` where only version, upgrades, and manifest entries change. This PR fits neither case. **Note for maintainers:** This PR follows the same "chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas" pattern as recently merged #51, which also had only `model/` changes and no `codegen/` changes. If this is an established automated regeneration workflow (running the unchanged codegen pipeline against updated upstream schemas), the review policy may need to be updated to document this as a third legitimate case. If that is the intent here and maintainers can confirm the files were produced by running the codegen pipeline unmodified, this issue can be waived. ### Suggestions None.

stack72 force-pushed automated/regenerate-models from 0029cc9e92 to f3bb8116a0 2026-06-15 06:13:01 +00:00 Compare

stack72 commented 2026-06-15 06:25:48 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

Code Review

Summary

This PR is a chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas (2026-06-15) commit — the same established pattern as prior regeneration commits on main (e.g. 65b8090cd, f9ee1b766). All changes are confined to model/. No codegen/ files changed, which is expected when only upstream schemas change and the pipeline itself is unchanged.

New model files added (net-new resources from upstream schemas):

• model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/configuration_bundle.ts
• model/gcp/dlp/extensions/models/contentpolicies.ts

Existing model files updated (schema content changes):

• online_evaluation_config.ts, flow_log.ts, action_connector.ts, aiguardrail.ts, cachedcontents.ts, conversations.ts, features.ts, memberships_features.ts, instances.ts, alerts.ts, configurations.ts, configurations_revisions.ts, findings.ts

Manifest changes: all version bumps from earlier dates to 2026.06.15.1, with releaseNotes updated to list only the resources that changed in this run. The threatintelligence manifest correctly drops alerts_documents from its upgrade list (that file did not change in this run).

Blocking Issues

None.

Suggestions

None.

## Code Review ### Summary This PR is a `chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas (2026-06-15)` commit — the same established pattern as prior regeneration commits on main (e.g. `65b8090cd`, `f9ee1b766`). All changes are confined to `model/`. No `codegen/` files changed, which is expected when only upstream schemas change and the pipeline itself is unchanged. **New model files added** (net-new resources from upstream schemas): - `model/aws/bedrockagentcore/extensions/models/configuration_bundle.ts` - `model/gcp/dlp/extensions/models/contentpolicies.ts` **Existing model files updated** (schema content changes): - `online_evaluation_config.ts`, `flow_log.ts`, `action_connector.ts`, `aiguardrail.ts`, `cachedcontents.ts`, `conversations.ts`, `features.ts`, `memberships_features.ts`, `instances.ts`, `alerts.ts`, `configurations.ts`, `configurations_revisions.ts`, `findings.ts` **Manifest changes**: all version bumps from earlier dates to `2026.06.15.1`, with `releaseNotes` updated to list only the resources that changed in this run. The `threatintelligence` manifest correctly drops `alerts_documents` from its upgrade list (that file did not change in this run). ### Blocking Issues None. ### Suggestions None.

stack72 merged commit 223c0e9caf into main 2026-06-15 19:38:30 +00:00

stack72 deleted branch automated/regenerate-models 2026-06-15 19:38:31 +00:00

stack72 referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-06-15 19:38:31 +00:00

chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas (#52)

stack72 referenced this pull request 2026-06-16 06:23:32 +00:00

chore: regenerate models from upstream schemas #55

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

Labels

Clear labels

No items

No labels

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference

swamp-club/swamp-extensions!52

No description provided.