feat: API regeneration: 20260423T070122Z#15584
Conversation
feat: add OnlineEvaluator API and update Evaluation API PiperOrigin-RevId: 903986874 Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@a19bd07
feat: Support search indexing docs: A comment for field `name` in message `.google.firestore.admin.v1.Backup` is changed PiperOrigin-RevId: 903884796 Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@a8d0b9d
…it e9975a3 docs: Updated docs for the APIs feat: Adding client libraries for Deployment API Compliance Manager Service PiperOrigin-RevId: 903655636 Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@e9975a3
google-cloud-sdk-librarian-dotnet-robot
requested a review
from a team
as a code owner
|
Pull request diff results Diff level: Minor Comparing with previous NuGet package Diff level: Minor Finished comparisons for Google.Cloud.AIPlatform.V1Beta1 Finding changes in Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1... Diff level: Minor Comparing with previous NuGet package Diff level: Minor Finished comparisons for Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1 Finding changes in Google.Cloud.Firestore.Admin.V1... Diff level: Minor Comparing with previous NuGet package Diff level: Minor Finished comparisons for Google.Cloud.Firestore.Admin.V1 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds the OnlineEvaluator service and GenerateInstanceRubrics functionality to the AI Platform V1Beta1 library, along with associated data models and snippets. It also updates the Cloud Security Compliance V1 library to support project-level resource name patterns and enhances monitoring with compliance summary views and trend data. Feedback suggests renaming or consolidating the Family and ControlFamily fields in the Control message to improve clarity for library consumers.
| private global::Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1.Control.Types.Family family_ = global::Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1.Control.Types.Family.Unspecified; | ||
| /// <summary> | ||
| /// Output only. The regulatory group that the control belongs to. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| [global::System.Diagnostics.DebuggerNonUserCodeAttribute] | ||
| [global::System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCode("protoc", null)] | ||
| public global::Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1.Control.Types.Family Family { | ||
| get { return family_; } | ||
| set { | ||
| family_ = value; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// <summary>Field number for the "control_family" field.</summary> | ||
| public const int ControlFamilyFieldNumber = 6; | ||
| private global::Google.Cloud.CloudSecurityCompliance.V1.ControlFamily controlFamily_; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Control message defines both a Family enum field and a ControlFamily message field. While this is likely driven by the underlying proto definition, having two fields with such similar names referring to different types (enum vs message) can be confusing for library consumers. If the proto definition is under your control, consider consolidating or renaming these fields for better clarity.
2 participants
Changes in this PR