Skip to content

Restore current API schema pin#32277

Open
kennyj42 wants to merge 1 commit into
cloudflare:productionfrom
kennyj42:kjohnson/docs-api-schema-pin
Open

Restore current API schema pin#32277
kennyj42 wants to merge 1 commit into
cloudflare:productionfrom
kennyj42:kjohnson/docs-api-schema-pin

Conversation

@kennyj42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

Restore the API schema pin to commit 29f8cda983dbd30c426fcc9d2767b2548409ac46. A later docs update reverted this value to an older schema commit.

Testing

  • git diff --check origin/production...HEAD

@kodster28
kodster28 marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 15:08
@kodster28
kodster28 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 23, 2026 15:08
@cloudflare-docs-bot

cloudflare-docs-bot Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review

⚠️ 1 warning found in commit 2c71abd.

👉 Fix in your agent 👈
Fix the following review findings in PR #32277 (https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflare-docs/pull/32277).

Before making changes, review each finding and present a brief summary table:
- For each finding, state whether you agree, disagree, or need clarification
- If you disagree (e.g. the fix requires disproportionate effort for minimal benefit,
  or the finding is factually incorrect), explain why
- If you need clarification before deciding, ask those questions
- Then share your plan for which issues to tackle and in what order

After triaging, follow this order:
1. Post a comment on this PR for any findings you are skipping, with the finding ID and your reasoning.
2. Then commit the fixes for the legitimate findings.

The comment must come before the commit — the bot reads PR comments when a new
push triggers a review, so skip comments posted after the push will be missed.

---

## Code Review

### Warnings (1)

#### CR-cd4876a52395 · Unvalidated fetch response
- **File:** `src/util/api.ts` line 22
- **Issue:** The `fetch` response is passed directly to `response.json()` without checking `response.ok`. A 4xx/5xx response from gh-code will be parsed as JSON and sent to `SwaggerParser.dereference`, producing a confusing downstream error instead of surfacing the HTTP failure.
- **Fix:** Check `if (!response.ok) throw new Error(\`HTTP ${response.status}\`)` immediately after the `fetch` call and before calling `response.json()`.

Code Review

This code review is in beta and may not always be helpful — use your judgment.

Warnings (1)
File Issue
src/util/api.ts line 22 Unvalidated fetch response — The fetch response is passed directly to response.json() without checking response.ok. A 4xx/5xx response from gh-code will be parsed as JSON and sent to SwaggerParser.dereference, producing a confusing downstream error instead of surfacing the HTTP failure. Fix: Check if (!response.ok) throw new Error(\HTTP ${response.status}`)immediately after thefetchcall and before callingresponse.json()`.

Conventions

No convention issues found.

Style Guide Review

No style-guide issues found.

Commands

Only codeowners can run commands. Post a comment with the command to trigger it.

Command Description
/review Runs a review now. Incremental if a prior review exists, full if not.
/full-review Re-reviews the entire PR diff from scratch, ignoring incremental history. Useful after a rebase, when you want a fresh review, or if the bot gets out of sync and reports issues that no longer exist.
/ignore-review-limit Permanently lifts the 2-review automatic limit for this PR. Future pushes will trigger reviews as normal.
/disable-auto-review Stops automatic reviews from triggering on future pushes to this PR. Codeowners can still run /review or /full-review manually.
/rebase Rebases the PR branch against production. On conflict, attempts to resolve automatically using AI. Stops with an explanation if confidence is not high enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants