chore: prepare v1.50.0 release

[erraggy]

Summary

• Pre-release preparation for v1.50.0
• Includes CI benchmark results

Checklist

• All tests pass
• Benchmarks recorded
• Documentation reviewed

---

🤖 Generated by prepare-release.sh

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

• New Features

  • Added three new CLI examples demonstrating how to query OpenAPI spec structure using walk commands.
  • Introduced new collectors for parameters, responses, and security schemes with comprehensive lookup capabilities.

• Documentation

  • Expanded CLI reference with complete walk command documentation and examples.
  • Updated walker documentation with detailed collector information and usage patterns.
  • Added example tests demonstrating the new collectors in action.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces three new collector types (CollectParameters, CollectResponses, CollectSecuritySchemes) to the walker package with comprehensive documentation and example tests. It also updates CLI documentation, adds benchmark results, and refines error handling in walk command implementations.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CLI Command Updates cmd/oastools/commands/walk_responses.go, cmd/oastools/commands/walk_schemas.go	Minor adjustments to validation order and error message formatting. walk_responses.go reorders spec file argument validation, while walk_schemas.go adds "walk schemas: " prefix to error messages for consistency.
Walker Package Documentation & Examples walker/deep_dive.md, walker/doc.go, walker/example_test.go	Introduces documentation and examples for three new collector types. Expands deep_dive.md with detailed sections on CollectParameters, CollectResponses, and CollectSecuritySchemes with their respective data structures and usage patterns. Adds example test functions demonstrating parameter, response, and security scheme collection.
Project Documentation README.md, docs/cli-reference.md	Adds CLI quick-start examples for walk command (operations, schemas, responses) and comprehensive walk command reference documentation including subcommands, flags, and extension filter DSL details.
Benchmarks benchmarks/benchmark-v1.50.0.txt	New benchmark results log containing environment metadata, CPU information, and performance metrics across multiple packages including parser, validator, fixer, and walker.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• feat(walk): add walk command for querying OpenAPI specs #304 — Directly overlaps with walk command functionality, walker collector implementations, and related documentation that are modified in this PR.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: prepare v1.50.0 release' accurately describes the PR's primary purpose of preparing a release, covering version documentation updates, benchmark results, and pre-release fixes.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Merge Conflict Detection	✅ Passed	✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/v1.50.0-release-prep

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.61%. Comparing base (f05a002) to head (283db50).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #305   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.61%   84.61%           
=======================================
  Files         166      166           
  Lines       25184    25184           
=======================================
  Hits        21310    21310           
  Misses       2623     2623           
  Partials     1251     1251           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

cmd/oastools/commands/walk_schemas.go (1)

44-48: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Inconsistent error message prefix at Line 48.

All other error messages in this function now use the "walk schemas: ..." prefix pattern (lines 44, 55, 60, 76, 104), but line 48 still uses the old "walk schemas requires a spec file argument" format. Compare with walk_responses.go line 43 which uses "walk responses: missing spec file argument".

Proposed fix for consistency

 	if fs.NArg() == 0 {
-		return fmt.Errorf("walk schemas requires a spec file argument")
+		return fmt.Errorf("walk schemas: missing spec file argument")
 	}

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@benchmarks/benchmark-v1.50.0.txt`:
- Around line 10-372: The benchmark artifact shows inconsistent CPU info: most
packages list "AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core Processor" while the walker package lists
"Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8370C CPU @ 2.80GHz" (see package blocks for
github.com/erraggy/oastools/walker and benchmark names like
BenchmarkWalk_WithPooling); update the release materials to either document this
hardware discrepancy next to the walker benchmarks, re-run the walker benchmarks
on the same AMD EPYC hardware (or re-run all benchmarks on the Intel Xeon) to
make results comparable, or split the walker benchmarks into a separate artifact
clearly labeled with the Intel Xeon CPU information so consumers can interpret
the numbers correctly.

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Note: Hardware inconsistency in benchmark results.

The benchmark results show different CPU architectures were used:

• Most packages: AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core Processor
• Walker package (lines 353-372): Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8370C CPU @ 2.80GHz

This inconsistency makes it difficult to directly compare the walker package's performance against other packages. For release documentation purposes, consider either:

1. Noting this hardware difference in the release notes
2. Re-running benchmarks on consistent hardware
3. Separating walker benchmarks into a different artifact with hardware context

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In `@benchmarks/benchmark-v1.50.0.txt` around lines 10 - 372, The benchmark
artifact shows inconsistent CPU info: most packages list "AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core
Processor" while the walker package lists "Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8370C CPU @
2.80GHz" (see package blocks for github.com/erraggy/oastools/walker and
benchmark names like BenchmarkWalk_WithPooling); update the release materials to
either document this hardware discrepancy next to the walker benchmarks, re-run
the walker benchmarks on the same AMD EPYC hardware (or re-run all benchmarks on
the Intel Xeon) to make results comparable, or split the walker benchmarks into
a separate artifact clearly labeled with the Intel Xeon CPU information so
consumers can interpret the numbers correctly.