fix: handle transition-shaped ucp_request markers in eval_prop_inclusion - #67
Merged
damaz91 merged 2 commits intoAug 11, 2026
Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information. For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request. |
Contributor
|
@oufanz thanks for opening this PR. Can you please sign the CLA at https://cla.developers.google.com/ so we can accept your contributions? Thanks |
FanouZeng-TT
force-pushed
the
fix/transition-markers-in-eval_prop_inclusion
branch
from
August 11, 2026 09:14
e374da3 to
6e69db0
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks @damaz91! The CLA has been signed now — the cla/google check is passing (SUCCESS). Appreciate the quick review, and happy to address any feedback on the change. |
damaz91
approved these changes
Aug 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
eval_prop_inclusioninpreprocess_schemas.pydid not handle thetransition-shapeducp_requestmarker that UCP introduced forcart.json'sidfield:When
marker.get(op)returns a dict (the{"transition": {...}}form), theexisting branches only compare against the strings
"omit"/"required"/"optional", none of which match a dict. The field therefore kept its basedefault of
include=Trueandis_required = name in base_required.Result: the generated
CartUpdateRequestmarksid: stras required, but thespec says
idshould be omitted in update requests (prefer transport-levelidentification, no duplication). A field that a string
"omit"marker handleseverywhere else is silently treated as required under the new transition form.
Fix: when the operation marker resolves to a dict, unwrap its
transition.tovalue before the existing"omit"/"required"/"optional"checks, so transition markers behave like their plain-stringequivalents.
Category (Required)
ucp-schematool (resolver, linter, validator). (Requires Maintainer approval)Related Issues
N/A
Checklist
!for breaking changes).Screenshots / Logs (if applicable)
N/A — codegen pipeline fix, no schema/field removal.