feat: Update creative formats to match AdCP spec PR #10

[bokelley]

Summary

This PR updates the creative format structure to align with the AdCP specification changes from PR #10.

Key Changes:

• Flattened Asset Structure: Removed nested requirements object
• Asset Identification: Added asset_id field for unique asset identification
• Required Field: Added required boolean to indicate mandatory vs optional assets
• Direct Properties: Properties like duration_seconds, max_file_size_mb are now directly on assets
• No Backward Compatibility: Removed legacy specs field entirely since this hasn't shipped yet

What Changed:

1. Schema Updates (schemas.py):

   • Added new Asset model with flattened structure
   • Updated Format model to use assets array
   • Added asset_mapping to Creative for mapping uploaded content

2. Foundational Formats (foundational_creative_formats.json):

   • All 5 formats now use the new asset structure
   • Each asset has asset_id, asset_type, required fields
   • Clear separation of different asset types (video, image, text, url, html)

3. Format Manager (foundational_formats.py):

   • Updated to work with assets instead of specs
   • Modified extension mechanism for asset-based formats

4. AI Service (ai_creative_format_service.py):

   • Updated to generate formats with asset structure
   • Added helper to create assets from AI analysis

Benefits:

• ✅ Cleaner, more structured format definitions
• ✅ Easier for orchestrators to understand requirements
• ✅ Clear mapping between uploaded content and format requirements
• ✅ Type-safe asset definitions
• ✅ Aligns with AdCP spec exactly

Test plan

• Run python3 test_format_json.py to verify JSON structure
• Run python3 validate_format_models.py to validate model changes
• Test with Docker deployment to ensure formats load correctly
• Test AI format discovery generates correct asset structure
• Verify existing media buy creation still works with new format structure

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[bokelley]

shouldn't these be part of the asset definition? doesn't video asset have these?

[bokelley]

is there a name field? seems like description would make more sense

[bokelley]

Response to Review Comments

1. "shouldn't these be part of the asset definition? doesn't video asset have these?"

The video asset properties are correctly implemented according to the AdCP spec:

• Direct properties (flattened): duration_seconds, max_bitrate_mbps, max_file_size_mb, acceptable_formats
• Additional specs: aspect_ratios, resolutions, codecs, audio settings

This follows the spec's pattern of having common properties directly on the asset while format-specific details go in additional_specs.

Example from our implementation:

{
  "asset_id": "video_file",
  "asset_type": "video",
  "duration_seconds": 30,
  "max_bitrate_mbps": 10,
  "additional_specs": {
    "aspect_ratios": ["16:9", "9:16", "1:1", "4:5"],
    "resolutions": { ... },
    "codecs": ["h264", "vp9"]
  }
}

2. "is there a name field? seems like description would make more sense"

Both fields exist and serve different purposes per the AdCP spec:

• name: Short, human-readable label (e.g., "Video File", "Product Images")
• description: Explains the asset's purpose (e.g., "Main video creative file", "Collection of product images for the carousel")

This allows UIs to show a concise label while having detailed explanations available when needed.

The implementation aligns with the AdCP spec PR #10 requirements. Happy to make any adjustments if there are specific concerns!