docs: remove_recovery_codes accepts login ID or user ID

[dorsha]

Related Issues

Required for:
https://github.com/descope/etc/issues/17502

Related PRs

Related PRs

• https://github.com/descope/backend/pull/2092
• feat: add remove_recovery_codes user management method #1643

In a Nutshell

• Document that remove_recovery_codes accepts a login ID or user ID

Description

Follow-up to #1643: the backend resolves the identifier as either a login ID or a user ID (descope/backend#2092), and the public API field is named identifier like the other user endpoints. Docstring/README update only — the login_id keyword argument is kept for backward compatibility, matching the SDK's convention for dual-ID endpoints (delete, update).

Must

• Tests

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[shuni-bot]

🐕 Review complete — View session on Shuni Portal 🐾

[shuni-bot]

🐕 Suggested Reviewers

The review assignment strategically includes contributors with diverse yet relevant areas of expertise—covering code, asynchronous functions, and documentation—to ensure comprehensive review coverage across the impacted files.

Reviewer	Reason
asafshen	asafshen has contributed to both user-related files and user_async, covering the key areas affected by the API documentation update.
LioriE	LioriE has worked on both user management files, providing a broad understanding of the user API logic.
omercnet	omercnet has contributed to the README and user.py, offering perspective on documentation clarity and code consistency.
ruvenzx	ruvenzx's single commit on user.py indicates direct experience with user management implementation.
aviadl	aviadl's focused contribution on user.py ensures detailed knowledge of the file's context.

_{Suggested by Shuni based on git history and PR context. Names are not @-mentioned to avoid notifying anyone — request a review from whoever fits best.}

[shuni-bot]

🐕 Shuni's Review

Docstring/README-only follow-up documenting that remove_recovery_codes accepts a login ID or a user ID. Sync and async docstrings stay in sync — good bones!

Sniffed out 1 issue:

• 1 🟡 MEDIUM: docs promise user-ID support, but the request body still serializes to loginId while the PR description says the public field is identifier

See inline comment for details. Woof!

---

Declared coverage: FULL — 3/3 changed files reviewed.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

The coverage rate went from 98.21% to 98.21% ➡️

None of the new lines are part of the tested code. Therefore, there is no coverage data about them.