Repository navigation
feat: add missing optional parameters to resource clients - #1144
Merged
Merged
Conversation
vdusek
added
adhoc
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1144 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.53% 95.53%
=======================================
Files 61 61
Lines 5974 5974
=======================================
Hits 5707 5707
Misses 267 267
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
vdusek
added a commit
to apify/apify-docs
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2026
Aligns the Actor, version, env var and schedule request schemas with what the API accepts, checked against apify-core and the live API. `CreateActorRequest` gets `actorPermissionLevel` and `CreateOrUpdateScheduleRequest` gets `notifications`, which now has its own `ScheduleNotifications` schema. Fields drop `null` where the API rejects it, or where a stored `null` breaks later requests. `versions` needs at least one item. `CreateOrUpdateVersionRequest` is split into `CreateVersionRequest`, which requires `versionNumber` and `sourceType`, and `UpdateVersionRequest`, where everything stays optional. Both take a new `WritableVersionSourceType` enum without `SOURCE_CODE`, which the API rejects. `EnvVarRequest` is now a standalone schema that requires `name` and `value`. The previous `allOf` over `EnvVar` made the generated client report an invalid override (apify/apify-client-python#1150). Value patterns and length limits are left out on purpose: apify-client-python turns them into local validation that would reject input before the API sees it. apify/apify-client-python#1151 previews the regenerated models. Until they're regenerated, apify/apify-client-python#1144 adds the missing fields to the request body by hand. *✍️ Drafted by Claude Code*
vdusek
force-pushed
the
feat/missing-resource-client-params
branch
from
October 19, 2026 13:59
af19452 to
d582a5a
Compare
vdusek
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 19, 2026 13:59
apify-service-account
added
the
tested
![apify-approval-mirror[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/24586296?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
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
3 participants
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.
Adds optional parameters that the API accepts and the JS client already exposes:
create()/update():description,max_total_charge_usdcreate()/update():description,should_interpolate_stringscreate()/update():notifications_email(sent asnotifications.email)list()/iterate():include_unrunnable_actorscreate():actor_permission_levelupdate():titleflattenandviewoniterate_items(),viewandattachmentonget_items_as_bytes()andstream_items(),item_formatoncreate_items_public_url()notificationsandactor_permission_levelgo through the generated request models, which got these fields in #1152 (from apify/apify-docs#3087). Task input stays dict-only: the spec allows a list, but the API rejects anything other than an object.Closes: #1147
✍️ Drafted by Claude Code