Skip to content

[PM-22256] - Updating OpenAPI bindings #366

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 31, 2025
Merged

Conversation

jrmccannon
Copy link
Contributor

@jrmccannon jrmccannon commented Jul 29, 2025

🎟️ Tracking

PM-22256

📔 Objective

As a part of adding new properties to the collection structs, the API bindings need to be regenerated to include the new changes.

These bindings were generated off this commit I believe.
bitwarden/server@a84e555

⏰ Reminders before review

  • Contributor guidelines followed
  • All formatters and local linters executed and passed
  • Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
  • Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
  • Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
  • CI builds passed
  • Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
  • Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation
    team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

  • 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
  • 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
  • ❓ (:question:) for questions
  • 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed
    issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
  • 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
  • ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
  • 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
  • ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

@jrmccannon jrmccannon requested a review from a team as a code owner July 29, 2025 13:44
@jrmccannon jrmccannon requested a review from dani-garcia July 29, 2025 13:44
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 29, 2025

Logo
Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Detailsca64808e-5e45-4c01-8514-4dec8ac26463

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 29, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 73.62%. Comparing base (49d027c) to head (31cb1af).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
crates/bitwarden-core/src/admin_console/policy.rs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
crates/bw/src/main.rs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #366      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.43%   73.62%   +0.18%     
==========================================
  Files         248      248              
  Lines       20962    20912      -50     
==========================================
+ Hits        15393    15396       +3     
+ Misses       5569     5516      -53     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Member

@dani-garcia dani-garcia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On first look everything looks good to me. Deleting register and keeping the match sounds reasonable, that code will need to be rewritten to use the new endpoints.

Can you include the git commit of the server that was used to generate the bindings? It would make it much faster for me to review the generated code that way.

@@ -178,32 +177,6 @@ async fn process_commands() -> Result<()> {
}
return Ok(());
}
Commands::Register {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clippy is complaining about the single branch match, you can do two things here:

  • Keep the branch, but don't do anything:
Commands::Register { .. } => unimplemented!(),
  • Silence the warning on top of the match:
#[allow(clippy::single_match)]
match command.clone() {

@jrmccannon
Copy link
Contributor Author

On first look everything looks good to me. Deleting register and keeping the match sounds reasonable, that code will need to be rewritten to use the new endpoints.

Can you include the git commit of the server that was used to generate the bindings? It would make it much faster for me to review the generated code that way.

I added the commit to the description.

Copy link

@jrmccannon jrmccannon requested a review from dani-garcia July 30, 2025 16:36
Copy link
Member

@dani-garcia dani-garcia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tried regenerating the bindings and they match, LGTM

@jrmccannon jrmccannon merged commit ae0cae2 into main Jul 31, 2025
51 of 52 checks passed
@jrmccannon jrmccannon deleted the jmccannon/ac/pm-22256 branch July 31, 2025 12:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants