feat: migrate google-cloud-beyondcorp-clientconnectorservices to librarian#8490
Conversation
|
Fixed. |
jskeet
force-pushed
the
migrate-google-cloud-beyondcorp-clientconnectorservices
branch
from
52301bb to
bd06ef9
Compare
jskeet
force-pushed
the
migrate-google-cloud-beyondcorp-clientconnectorservices
branch
from
bd06ef9 to
24683db
Compare
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request removes the skip_generate flag for BeyondCorp client connector services and client gateways in librarian.yaml, updates the repository metadata for clientconnectorservices, and deletes numerous generated files for clientgateways. However, there appears to be a critical mix-up: the PR aims to migrate clientconnectorservices, but the deleted files belong to clientgateways. Additionally, manually editing the generated .repo-metadata.json file is discouraged, as updates should be made upstream in the generator.
| "name": "beyondcorp", | ||
| "name_pretty": "BeyondCorp", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not manually edit generated client configuration JSON files. Any changes or updates to .repo-metadata.json must be made upstream in the generator.
References
- Do not manually edit generated client configuration JSON files. Any changes or updates must be made upstream in the generator.
jskeet
changed the title
| "distribution_name": "@google-cloud/clientconnectorservices", | ||
| "api_id": "beyondcorp.googleapis.com", | ||
| "default_version": "v1", | ||
| "requires_billing": true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pearigee do you know what this field is used for? We will need to add it back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't believe it's used any more - we removed it from the few places it occurred in Python.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I remember it's used for README.md generation, especially whether adding [Enable billing for your project](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/6293499#enable-billing). step.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My memory is from Java. As I see no change in README.md in this pull request, I would say the removal of requires_billing is fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But that would apply to basically all APIs, wouldn't it? I don't think we have any real signal for this, and would suggest we should stop pretending we do :)
3 participants
No description provided.