LCORE-390: field description for ReadinessResponse model

[tisnik]

Description

LCORE-390: field description for ReadinessResponse model

Type of change

• Refactor
• New feature
• Bug fix
• CVE fix
• Optimization
• Documentation Update
• Configuration Update
• Bump-up service version
• Bump-up dependent library
• Bump-up library or tool used for development (does not change the final image)
• CI configuration change
• Konflux configuration change
• Unit tests improvement
• Integration tests improvement
• End to end tests improvement

Related Tickets & Documents

• Related Issue #LCORE-390

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Improved readiness response documentation with clear descriptions for ready, reason, and providers fields.
  • Added example values to the API schema and reference docs to clarify expected responses.
  • Updated user-facing examples to be more realistic.
  • Enhances OpenAPI browsing and tooling compatibility.
  • No changes to API behavior or response structure.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added descriptive metadata and examples to ReadinessResponse across OpenAPI JSON, Markdown docs, and the Pydantic model by wrapping fields with Field. No structural or semantic API changes; only documentation-oriented updates.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of Changes
OpenAPI Spec docs/openapi.json	Added descriptions and examples to ReadinessResponse fields: ready, reason, providers; no schema structure changes.
Documentation docs/openapi.md, docs/output.md	Updated text/descriptions for ReadinessResponse fields; adjusted an example user_feedback string; no API changes.
Response Model src/models/responses.py	Converted ReadinessResponse attributes to Pydantic Field with descriptions and examples; types unchanged.

Sequence Diagram(s)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• LCORE-390: fields in response structures #399 — Also updates Pydantic response metadata in src/models/responses.py, overlapping with ReadinessResponse field docs.
• LCORE-304: OpenAPI documentation in Markdown #259 — Introduced/modified the OpenAPI ReadinessResponse spec that this PR further annotates with descriptions and examples.

Poem

A rabbit taps the schema tree,
Adds little notes for all to see.
“Ready?” it asks—“and why, dear friend?”
Providers listed end to end.
With fields now clear and docs in sync,
I twitch my nose—and hop a wink. 🐇✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "LCORE-390: field description for ReadinessResponse model" succinctly and accurately summarizes the primary change—adding descriptive metadata to the ReadinessResponse fields—and references the related ticket. It is concise, specific, and directly maps to the modifications in docs/openapi.json, docs/*.md, and src/models/responses.py without extraneous or vague wording.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

src/models/responses.py (1)

176-192: Tiny wording nits for clarity/consistency

Consider tightening phrasing.

-    ready: bool = Field(
-        ...,
-        description="Flag indicating if service is ready",
-        examples=[True, False],
-    )
+    ready: bool = Field(
+        ...,
+        description="Flag indicating whether the service is ready",
+        examples=[True, False],
+    )

-    reason: str = Field(
-        ...,
-        description="The reason for the readiness",
-        examples=["Service is ready"],
-    )
+    reason: str = Field(
+        ...,
+        description="Reason for the readiness status",
+        examples=["Service is ready"],
+    )

-    providers: list[ProviderHealthStatus] = Field(
-        ...,
-        description="List of unhealthy providers in case of readiness failure.",
-        examples=[],
-    )
+    providers: list[ProviderHealthStatus] = Field(
+        ...,
+        description="List of unhealthy providers when not ready; empty when ready.",
+        examples=[],
+    )

docs/openapi.md (1)

757-757: Unrelated example tweak—confirm or revert

This change to a FeedbackRequest example seems out of scope for LCORE-390. If unintentional, please revert to keep the PR focused.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 31e96ca and 9bae913.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• docs/openapi.json (1 hunks)
• docs/openapi.md (2 hunks)
• docs/output.md (1 hunks)
• src/models/responses.py (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: e2e_tests
• GitHub Check: build-pr

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/models/responses.py (1)

176-192: LGTM on Field metadata for ReadinessResponse

Descriptions and examples are aligned and will improve the generated schema/docs.

docs/output.md (1)

1117-1119: Docs match model changes

ReadinessResponse field descriptions are consistent with the Pydantic model.

docs/openapi.md (1)

1127-1129: Docs match model changes

ReadinessResponse field descriptions align with the code and OpenAPI JSON.

docs/openapi.json (1)

2243-2265: Schema metadata addition looks good

Added title/description/examples for ReadinessResponse properties improves API clarity without changing the contract.