Schemas for connection config, and test script

[einarmo]

We should verify that we can properly build docs and bundled schemas for the separate config schemas in this project.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces several new JSON schemas to formally define various configuration structures within the project, such as connection details, retry policies, and scheduling options. Additionally, it includes a new testing script designed to validate the proper generation of documentation and bundled versions for these schemas. These changes aim to improve configuration consistency, clarity, and maintainability by providing explicit schema definitions and automated verification.

Highlights

• New Connection Configuration Schema: Introduced a new JSON schema (connection_config.schema.json) to define the structure for connection configurations, including authentication methods (client credentials, client certificates) and SSL settings.
• New Retry Configuration Schema: Added a dedicated JSON schema (retries_config.schema.json) for retry configurations, specifying properties such as maximum retries, maximum backoff, and timeout.
• New Schedule Configuration Schema: Implemented a new JSON schema (schedule_config.schema.json) for defining task scheduling configurations, supporting both fixed interval and cron expressions.
• Schema File Renaming: Renamed extractor_config.json to extractor_config.schema.json to standardize schema file naming conventions.
• Schema Verification Script: Added a new bash script (test_schemas.sh) to automate the process of bundling and generating documentation for the various configuration schemas, ensuring their correctness and usability.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Ignored Files

• Ignored by pattern: .github/workflows/** (1)
  • .github/workflows/test_and_build.yml

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces several new JSON schemas for configuration and a test script to validate them. My review focuses on improving the correctness and robustness of these schemas. I've identified a few areas for improvement: using standard JSON Schema keywords for better compatibility, adding missing validation for required properties, and enforcing specific string formats with patterns to prevent invalid configuration and potential runtime errors. These changes will make the schemas more reliable and easier to use.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.25%. Comparing base (ae83c7c) to head (bb20a96).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #512   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.25%   81.25%           
=======================================
  Files          43       43           
  Lines        4210     4210           
=======================================
  Hits         3421     3421           
  Misses        789      789           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...te/extractorutils/unstable/configuration/models.py	84.85% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[toondaey]

LGTM!

[einarmo]

🦄