Updated python client #32
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_user_service_rpc_handler.py (1)
691-694: Remove extra blank lines in docstring.The docstring contains unnecessary blank lines that should be removed for consistency with other methods.
"""Retrieves all tenant users. - - :param request: (required)onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_ticket_service_rpc_handler.py (2)
693-812: LGTM with minor documentation suggestions.The implementation follows the established patterns and maintains backward compatibility. Consider enhancing the docstring to:
- Document the differences between v1 and v2
- Add migration guidelines if v1 will be deprecated
Apply this diff to improve the documentation:
def get_policy_ticket_stats_v2( self, request: GetPolicyTicketStatsRequestV2, _request_timeout: Union[ None, Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)], Tuple[ Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)], Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)] ], ] = None, _request_auth: Optional[Dict[StrictStr, Any]] = None, _content_type: Optional[StrictStr] = None, _headers: Optional[Dict[StrictStr, Any]] = None, _host_index: Annotated[StrictInt, Field(ge=0, le=0)] = 0, ) -> GetPolicyTicketStatsResponse: - """Get Policy Ticket Stats V2 + """Get Policy Ticket Stats V2. + + This version extends the original get_policy_ticket_stats with additional features: + <document key differences here> + + Note: If you're currently using v1, consider migrating to v2 as it provides + enhanced functionality while maintaining backward compatibility. :param request: (required)
693-812: Consider documenting the versioning strategy.The codebase demonstrates a good approach to API versioning by:
- Maintaining backward compatibility
- Using consistent version suffixes
- Sharing response types where possible
Consider documenting the versioning strategy in a central location (e.g., README.md) to help maintainers understand:
- When to create new versions vs. modifying existing endpoints
- How to handle deprecation of older versions
- Guidelines for maintaining backward compatibility
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
poetry.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/models.py (39 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/init.py (3 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/hierarchy_node_service_rpc_handler.py (97 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/resource_catalog_service_rpc_handler.py (7 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/saved_view_service_rpc_handler.py (1 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_connection_service_rpc_handler.py (1 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_ticket_service_rpc_handler.py (2 hunks)
- onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_user_service_rpc_handler.py (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (13)
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/__init__.py (1)
77-79: LGTM! The new RPC handlers are properly integrated.The changes correctly expose the new RPC handlers (
SavedViewServiceRpcHandlerandTenantConnectionServiceRpcHandler) through the module's public API. The imports and__all__list entries are consistent.Let's verify that the imported modules exist:
Also applies to: 101-103, 126-126, 132-132
✅ Verification successful
Since both RPC handler files were found in the expected location within the repository, I can now generate the final response.
The new RPC handlers are correctly integrated and their modules exist
Both imported modules are present in the repository:
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/saved_view_service_rpc_handler.pyonelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_connection_service_rpc_handler.py🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new RPC handler modules # Test: Check if the new RPC handler files exist fd --type f "saved_view_service_rpc_handler.py|tenant_connection_service_rpc_handler.py" --exec echo "Found: {}"Length of output: 267
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/resource_catalog_service_rpc_handler.py (4)
29-40: LGTM: Import changes are well-structured.The new imports for resource catalog count stats models are properly organized.
545-663: LGTM: Well-implemented method with proper type validation.The implementation follows the established pattern with proper type hints, input validation, and error handling.
Line range hint
665-785: LGTM: Consistent implementation for untagged resources.The method maintains consistency with other implementations in the class and includes proper error handling.
652-653: Verify API documentation coverage.Please ensure that these new endpoints are properly documented in the API specification:
/rpc/resource_catalog_service/get_resource_catalog_count_stats/rpc/resource_catalog_service/get_untagged_resource_catalog_count_statsAlso applies to: 773-774
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the API documentation coverage.
This script casts a wider net by:
- Looking for documentation files with common extensions
- Searching for API documentation related code patterns in Python files
Let's see what we find to make a more informed decision about the documentation coverage.
Based on the search results, I can see that this is an OpenAPI/Swagger-based client library generated using the OpenAPI Generator. Let me search for the actual API specification files that would document these endpoints.
This will help us verify if these endpoints are documented in any API specification files and where they are referenced in the codebase.
Let me check the RPC handler file to understand how these endpoints are implemented and documented.
This will help us understand if these endpoints are properly documented within the code itself, since we couldn't find external API specification files.
Let me check for the request and response models to understand the complete API documentation.
This will help us understand if these endpoints are properly defined with their request/response models and if they are covered by tests.
Based on the findings, I can now provide a final response about the API documentation coverage.
API documentation is properly implemented in code
The endpoints are well-documented within the codebase:
- Both endpoints have properly defined request/response models with field descriptions and types
- Response models include clear documentation:
GetResourceCatalogCountStatsResponse: Documents "Fetched metric value"GetUntaggedResourceCatalogCountStatsResponse: Documents "The count of untagged resource catalogs"- Request models include documented filter parameters and optional navira_log_id field
- The API client is auto-generated from these models, ensuring consistency
While there's no separate OpenAPI/Swagger specification file, the API documentation is maintained through Python type hints and Pydantic models, which is a valid approach for internal client libraries.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the new endpoints are documented in OpenAPI/Swagger specs # Look for API spec files echo "Searching for API specification files..." fd -e yaml -e json . | grep -i "api\|swagger\|openapi"Length of output: 147
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential API documentation files with broader patterns echo "Looking for API documentation files..." fd -t f -e md -e yaml -e json -e py . | grep -i "api\|doc\|spec" # Search for imports or references to API documentation echo -e "\nSearching for API documentation related code..." rg -i "openapi|swagger|api.*doc" -g "*.py"Length of output: 269411
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential API specification files in yaml/json format echo "Looking for API specification files..." fd -t f -e yaml -e json . | grep -i "api\|swagger\|openapi\|spec" # Search for the specific endpoint paths in any file echo -e "\nSearching for the endpoint paths..." rg -l "/rpc/resource_catalog_service/get_resource_catalog_count_stats|/rpc/resource_catalog_service/get_untagged_resource_catalog_count_stats"Length of output: 456
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the RPC handler implementation for documentation and usage echo "Checking RPC handler implementation..." rg -C 10 "get_resource_catalog_count_stats|get_untagged_resource_catalog_count_stats" onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/resource_catalog_service_rpc_handler.py # Look for any docstrings or comments related to these endpoints echo -e "\nLooking for related documentation..." rg -C 5 -p "class ResourceCatalog|def get_resource_catalog_count_stats|def get_untagged_resource_catalog_count_stats" onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/resource_catalog_service_rpc_handler.pyLength of output: 7428
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for the request and response model definitions echo "Checking request/response models..." rg -C 5 "class GetResourceCatalogCountStatsRequest|class GetResourceCatalogCountStatsResponse|class GetUntaggedResourceCatalogCountStatsRequest|class GetUntaggedResourceCatalogCountStatsResponse" -g "*.py" # Check if these endpoints are used in tests echo -e "\nChecking test coverage..." rg -l "get_resource_catalog_count_stats|get_untagged_resource_catalog_count_stats" -g "test_*.py"Length of output: 3447
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_user_service_rpc_handler.py (3)
32-32: LGTM!The import follows the established pattern and is correctly placed with other model imports.
675-738: LGTM!The method implementation follows the established pattern with proper validation, error handling, and response processing.
740-794: LGTM!The serialization helper follows the established pattern and correctly handles request parameters, headers, and authentication settings.
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/tenant_ticket_service_rpc_handler.py (1)
38-38: LGTM!The import follows the existing pattern and is correctly grouped with other model imports.
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/hierarchy_node_service_rpc_handler.py (2)
Line range hint
102-2045: Well-structured RPC methods with consistent patterns.The RPC methods follow a robust and consistent pattern with:
- Strong type validation using pydantic
- Clear parameter documentation
- Proper error handling with response type mapping
- Consistent serialization approach
216-216: Verify if authentication is intentionally disabled.All RPC methods have empty authentication settings (
_auth_settings: List[str] = []). Please confirm if this is intentional, as it could pose a security risk if these endpoints should require authentication.Also applies to: 337-337, 458-458, 579-579, 700-700, 821-821, 942-942, 1063-1063, 1184-1184, 1305-1305, 1426-1426, 1547-1547, 1668-1668, 1789-1789, 1910-1910, 2031-2031
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/saved_view_service_rpc_handler.py (2)
1-652: Code Review ApprovedThe implementation of the
SavedViewServiceRpcHandlerclass and its methods appears to be correct and follows the established patterns for RPC handlers in the project. The methods are properly defined, and the serialization functions handle request and response data as expected.
41-42: VerifySavedViewServiceRpcHandleris Properly Imported in the RPC ModulePlease ensure that the
SavedViewServiceRpcHandlerclass is correctly imported and registered in theonelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/__init__.pyfile to include it in the public interface of the RPC module.Run the following script to check if
SavedViewServiceRpcHandleris imported in__init__.py:✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify this by checking both the content of the
__init__.pyfile and searching for any imports of this class throughout the codebase.
SavedViewServiceRpcHandleris Properly Imported and RegisteredThe verification shows that
SavedViewServiceRpcHandleris correctly imported and registered in the RPC module:
- It's imported in
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/__init__.pyfrom the correct module- It's properly included in the
__all__list, making it part of the public interface🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if SavedViewServiceRpcHandler is imported in __init__.py # Test: Search for the import statement. # Expected: The class should be imported in __init__.py rg 'from \.saved_view_service_rpc_handler import SavedViewServiceRpcHandler' onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/__init__.pyLength of output: 120
Script:
#!/bin/bash # First, let's check the content of __init__.py echo "=== Content of __init__.py ===" cat onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/__init__.py # Then, let's search for any imports of SavedViewServiceRpcHandler across the codebase echo -e "\n=== Imports of SavedViewServiceRpcHandler across the codebase ===" rg "import.*SavedViewServiceRpcHandler" --type py # Also check for direct references to the class name echo -e "\n=== References to SavedViewServiceRpcHandler ===" rg "SavedViewServiceRpcHandler" --type pyLength of output: 5017
| from pydantic import validate_call, Field, StrictFloat, StrictStr, StrictInt | ||
| from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, Tuple, Union | ||
| from typing_extensions import Annotated | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateDefaultHierarchyRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateDefaultHierarchyResponse | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateHierarchyNodeRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateHierarchyNodeResponse | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateHierarchyRootNodeRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateHierarchyRootNodeResponse | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import DeleteHierarchyNodeRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import DeleteHierarchyNodeResponse | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import GetAllParentNodesRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import GetAllParentNodesResponse | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import GetHierarchyRequest | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider consolidating imports for better maintainability.
The current approach of importing each model separately creates unnecessary verbosity. Consider grouping related imports together.
-from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateDefaultHierarchyRequest
-from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateDefaultHierarchyResponse
-from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import CreateHierarchyNodeRequest
# ... more individual imports
+from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import (
+ CreateDefaultHierarchyRequest, CreateDefaultHierarchyResponse,
+ CreateHierarchyNodeRequest, CreateHierarchyNodeResponse,
+ # ... other models
+)Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| def _create_tenant_connection_serialize( | ||
| self, | ||
| request: CreateTenantConnectionRequest, | ||
| _request_auth, | ||
| _content_type, | ||
| _headers, | ||
| _host_index, | ||
| ) -> RequestSerialized: | ||
| _host = None | ||
|
|
||
| _collection_formats: Dict[str, str] = {} | ||
|
|
||
| _path_params: Dict[str, str] = {} | ||
| _query_params: List[Tuple[str, str]] = [] | ||
| _header_params: Dict[str, Optional[str]] = _headers or {} | ||
| _form_params: List[Tuple[str, str]] = [] | ||
| _files: Dict[str, Union[str, bytes]] = {} | ||
| _body_params: Optional[bytes] = None | ||
|
|
||
| # process the body parameter | ||
| if request is not None: | ||
| _body_params = request | ||
|
|
||
| # set the HTTP header `Accept` | ||
| _header_params["Accept"] = self.api_client.select_header_accept( | ||
| ["application/json"] | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| # set the HTTP header `Content-Type` | ||
| if _content_type: | ||
| _header_params["Content-Type"] = _content_type | ||
| else: | ||
| _default_content_type = self.api_client.select_header_content_type( | ||
| ["application/json"] | ||
| ) | ||
| if _default_content_type is not None: | ||
| _header_params["Content-Type"] = _default_content_type | ||
|
|
||
| # authentication setting | ||
| _auth_settings: List[str] = [] | ||
|
|
||
| return self.api_client.param_serialize( | ||
| method="POST", | ||
| resource_path="/rpc/tenant_connection_service/create_tenant_connection", | ||
| path_params=_path_params, | ||
| query_params=_query_params, | ||
| header_params=_header_params, | ||
| body=_body_params, | ||
| post_params=_form_params, | ||
| files=_files, | ||
| auth_settings=_auth_settings, | ||
| collection_formats=_collection_formats, | ||
| _host=_host, | ||
| _request_auth=_request_auth, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor Duplicate Serialization Methods
The private serialization methods _create_tenant_connection_serialize, _get_tenant_connection_serialize, and _migrate_serialize contain largely identical code except for differences like resource_path. This duplication can lead to increased maintenance effort and the risk of inconsistencies across methods.
Consider refactoring these methods into a single generic serialization method that accepts parameters for the differing parts, such as resource_path. This will reduce code duplication and enhance maintainability.
Here is a suggested approach:
def _serialize_request(
self,
request: Any,
resource_path: str,
_request_auth,
_content_type,
_headers,
_host_index,
) -> RequestSerialized:
_host = None
_collection_formats: Dict[str, str] = {}
_path_params: Dict[str, str] = {}
_query_params: List[Tuple[str, str]] = []
_header_params: Dict[str, Optional[str]] = _headers or {}
_form_params: List[Tuple[str, str]] = []
_files: Dict[str, Union[str, bytes]] = {}
_body_params: Optional[bytes] = None
# process the body parameter
if request is not None:
_body_params = request
# set the HTTP header `Accept`
_header_params["Accept"] = self.api_client.select_header_accept(
["application/json"]
)
# set the HTTP header `Content-Type`
if _content_type:
_header_params["Content-Type"] = _content_type
else:
_default_content_type = self.api_client.select_header_content_type(
["application/json"]
)
if _default_content_type is not None:
_header_params["Content-Type"] = _default_content_type
# authentication setting
_auth_settings: List[str] = []
return self.api_client.param_serialize(
method="POST",
resource_path=resource_path,
path_params=_path_params,
query_params=_query_params,
header_params=_header_params,
body=_body_params,
post_params=_form_params,
files=_files,
auth_settings=_auth_settings,
collection_formats=_collection_formats,
_host=_host,
_request_auth=_request_auth,
)Then, each specific serialization method can call _serialize_request:
def _create_tenant_connection_serialize(
self,
request: CreateTenantConnectionRequest,
_request_auth,
_content_type,
_headers,
_host_index,
) -> RequestSerialized:
return self._serialize_request(
request,
resource_path="/rpc/tenant_connection_service/create_tenant_connection",
_request_auth=_request_auth,
_content_type=_content_type,
_headers=_headers,
_host_index=_host_index,
)This refactoring simplifies the codebase and makes it easier to manage serialization logic in one place.
Also applies to: 220-275, 341-395
| """Migrate | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| :param request: (required) | ||
| :type request: MigrateTenantConnectionRequest | ||
| :param _request_timeout: timeout setting for this request. If one | ||
| number provided, it will be total request | ||
| timeout. It can also be a pair (tuple) of | ||
| (connection, read) timeouts. | ||
| :type _request_timeout: int, tuple(int, int), optional | ||
| :param _request_auth: set to override the auth_settings for an a single | ||
| request; this effectively ignores the | ||
| authentication in the spec for a single request. | ||
| :type _request_auth: dict, optional | ||
| :param _content_type: force content-type for the request. | ||
| :type _content_type: str, Optional | ||
| :param _headers: set to override the headers for a single | ||
| request; this effectively ignores the headers | ||
| in the spec for a single request. | ||
| :type _headers: dict, optional | ||
| :param _host_index: set to override the host_index for a single | ||
| request; this effectively ignores the host_index | ||
| in the spec for a single request. | ||
| :type _host_index: int, optional | ||
| :return: Returns the result object. | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incomplete Docstring for the migrate Method
The docstring for the migrate method is incomplete and lacks a detailed description of the method's purpose and functionality. Providing a clear and comprehensive docstring helps maintainers and users understand what the method does and how to use it properly.
Please update the docstring to include a meaningful description. For example:
def migrate(
self,
request: MigrateTenantConnectionRequest,
_request_timeout: Union[
None,
Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)],
Tuple[
Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)], Annotated[StrictFloat, Field(gt=0)]
],
] = None,
_request_auth: Optional[Dict[StrictStr, Any]] = None,
_content_type: Optional[StrictStr] = None,
_headers: Optional[Dict[StrictStr, Any]] = None,
_host_index: Annotated[StrictInt, Field(ge=0, le=0)] = 0,
) -> MigrateTenantConnectionResponse:
- """Migrate
+ """Migrates tenant connections to a new state or configuration.
:param request: (required)
:type request: MigrateTenantConnectionRequest
...Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import MarkViewAsDefaultRequest | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import MarkViewAsDefaultResponse |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Ensure Consistent Naming between Methods and Request/Response Classes
The method mark_saved_view_as_default uses request and response classes named MarkViewAsDefaultRequest and MarkViewAsDefaultResponse. For consistency and clarity, consider renaming the request and response classes to MarkSavedViewAsDefaultRequest and MarkSavedViewAsDefaultResponse to match the method name and resource path.
| class ConnectionStatus(str, Enum): | ||
| ACTIVE = "ACTIVE" | ||
| IN_ACTIVE = "IN_ACTIVE" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct 'IN_ACTIVE' to 'INACTIVE' in Enum value
The enum value 'IN_ACTIVE' should be spelled 'INACTIVE' to maintain consistency and correct spelling.
Apply this diff to correct the spelling:
class ConnectionStatus(str, Enum):
ACTIVE = "ACTIVE"
- IN_ACTIVE = "IN_ACTIVE"
+ INACTIVE = "INACTIVE"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| class ConnectionStatus(str, Enum): | |
| ACTIVE = "ACTIVE" | |
| IN_ACTIVE = "IN_ACTIVE" | |
| class ConnectionStatus(str, Enum): | |
| ACTIVE = "ACTIVE" | |
| INACTIVE = "INACTIVE" |
| last_name: Optional[str] = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Last name of the user", title="Last Name" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove 'Optional' from required field 'last_name'
The field last_name is annotated as Optional[str] but is required (default is ...). To correctly indicate that the field is required, remove Optional.
Apply this diff:
middle_name: Optional[str] = Field(
None, description="Middle name of the user", title="Middle Name"
)
- last_name: Optional[str] = Field(
+ last_name: str = Field(
..., description="Last name of the user", title="Last Name"
)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| last_name: Optional[str] = Field( | |
| ..., description="Last name of the user", title="Last Name" | |
| ) | |
| last_name: str = Field( | |
| ..., description="Last name of the user", title="Last Name" | |
| ) |
| first_name: Optional[str] = Field( | ||
| ..., description="First name of the user", title="First Name" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove 'Optional' from required field 'first_name'
The field first_name is annotated as Optional[str] but is required (default is ...). To correctly indicate that the field is required, remove Optional.
Apply this diff:
class BaseUser(BaseModel):
model_config = ConfigDict(
extra="forbid",
)
- first_name: Optional[str] = Field(
+ first_name: str = Field(
..., description="First name of the user", title="First Name"
)Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| class CreateTenantConnectionRequest(BaseModel): | ||
| connection_string: str = Field( | ||
| ..., description="database connection string", title="Connection String" | ||
| ) | ||
| tenant_id: UUID4 = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id" | ||
| ) | ||
| connection_type: str = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Type of the connection", title="Connection Type" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use 'ConnectionType' Enum for 'connection_type' field
The connection_type field should use the ConnectionType Enum instead of str to ensure value constraints and consistency.
Apply this diff to use the ConnectionType Enum:
class CreateTenantConnectionRequest(BaseModel):
connection_string: str = Field(
..., description="database connection string", title="Connection String"
)
tenant_id: UUID4 = Field(
..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id"
)
- connection_type: str = Field(
+ connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(
..., description="Type of the connection", title="Connection Type"
)Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| class GetTenantConnectionRequest(BaseModel): | ||
| tenant_id: UUID4 = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id" | ||
| ) | ||
| connection_type: str = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Type of the connection", title="Connection Type" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use 'ConnectionType' Enum for 'connection_type' field
For the field connection_type in GetTenantConnectionRequest, using the ConnectionType Enum ensures value constraints and consistency.
Apply this diff:
class GetTenantConnectionRequest(BaseModel):
tenant_id: UUID4 = Field(
..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id"
)
- connection_type: str = Field(
+ connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(
..., description="Type of the connection", title="Connection Type"
)Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| class GetTenantConnectionResponse(BaseModel): | ||
| tenant_id: UUID4 = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id" | ||
| ) | ||
| connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(..., description="Type of the connection") | ||
| username: str = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Username for the connection", title="Username" | ||
| ) | ||
| password: str = Field( | ||
| ..., description="Password for the connection", title="Password" | ||
| ) | ||
| host: str = Field(..., description="Host for the connection", title="Host") | ||
| port: int = Field(..., description="Port for the connection", title="Port") | ||
| database: str = Field(..., description="Database name", title="Database") | ||
| status: ConnectionStatus = Field(..., description="Status of the connection") | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid including 'password' in API response for security reasons
Including password in GetTenantConnectionResponse may expose sensitive information. It's a security best practice to avoid returning passwords in API responses.
Apply this diff to remove the password field from the response:
class GetTenantConnectionResponse(BaseModel):
tenant_id: UUID4 = Field(
..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id"
)
connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(..., description="Type of the connection")
username: str = Field(
..., description="Username for the connection", title="Username"
)
- password: str = Field(
- ..., description="Password for the connection", title="Password"
- )
host: str = Field(..., description="Host for the connection", title="Host")
port: int = Field(..., description="Port for the connection", title="Port")
database: str = Field(..., description="Database name", title="Database")
status: ConnectionStatus = Field(..., description="Status of the connection")📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| class GetTenantConnectionResponse(BaseModel): | |
| tenant_id: UUID4 = Field( | |
| ..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id" | |
| ) | |
| connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(..., description="Type of the connection") | |
| username: str = Field( | |
| ..., description="Username for the connection", title="Username" | |
| ) | |
| password: str = Field( | |
| ..., description="Password for the connection", title="Password" | |
| ) | |
| host: str = Field(..., description="Host for the connection", title="Host") | |
| port: int = Field(..., description="Port for the connection", title="Port") | |
| database: str = Field(..., description="Database name", title="Database") | |
| status: ConnectionStatus = Field(..., description="Status of the connection") | |
| class GetTenantConnectionResponse(BaseModel): | |
| tenant_id: UUID4 = Field( | |
| ..., description="Unique identifier for the tenant", title="Tenant Id" | |
| ) | |
| connection_type: ConnectionType = Field(..., description="Type of the connection") | |
| username: str = Field( | |
| ..., description="Username for the connection", title="Username" | |
| ) | |
| host: str = Field(..., description="Host for the connection", title="Host") | |
| port: int = Field(..., description="Port for the connection", title="Port") | |
| database: str = Field(..., description="Database name", title="Database") | |
| status: ConnectionStatus = Field(..., description="Status of the connection") |
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation