fix: Auto monitor setup alignments

[OzBenSimhonTraceloop]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Selector parameter now accepts an array of rule objects (per-rule key/value/source/operator) instead of a single object.
  • Request example updated to show multiple selector rules.
  • Responses now include init_rules mirroring the input selector shape.
  • Added top-level response fields: status and updated_at.
  • Evaluator objects in responses updated to include schema/status and remove prior identifier fields.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The create-auto-monitor-setup API doc was updated: the selector request field is now an array of rule objects instead of a single object; responses include new top-level status and updated_at fields and an init_rules array; evaluator objects no longer include evaluator_id/binding_id and have input_schema, output_schema, and status.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)

Summary

API Documentation api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx

selector param type changed from object → object[]; request example updated to array of rule objects (key, value, values, source, operator). Response (201) now includes top-level status and updated_at, adds init_rules (mirrors input selector), adds org_id, project_id, env_project_id, and moves evaluator fields to include input_schema, output_schema, and status while removing evaluator_id and binding_id. Examples and textual descriptions updated accordingly.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 I hop through docs with ears held high,
Rules once single now line up in a sigh,
Init_rules mirror the selector's new tune,
Status and timestamps beneath the moon,
A tiny rabbit cheers this API boon.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'fix: Auto monitor setup alignments' is vague and does not clearly summarize the specific changes made in the pull request.	Provide a more specific title that describes the actual changes, such as 'fix: Update auto monitor setup selector format and response schema' to clearly communicate the main modifications to the API documentation.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch obs/TLP-1866-auto-monitor-setup-api

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx (1)

35-41: Clarify value and values exclusivity.

Line 38-Line 41 describe conditional requirements, but they don’t explicitly state whether both fields can be sent together. Adding an “exactly one of value/values” rule would prevent ambiguous payloads.

✍️ Suggested doc tweak

   | `operator` | string | No | Comparison operator. Defaults to `equals`. One of: `equals`, `not_equals`, `contains`, `not_contains`, `exists`, `not_exists`, `in`, `not_in` |
+
+  **Rule:** Provide exactly one of `value` or `values`, based on the selected `operator`.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx` around
lines 35 - 41, The doc currently allows ambiguous payloads by not stating
exclusivity between `value` and `values`; update the table and surrounding text
to require exactly one of `value` or `values` be provided (mutually exclusive),
clarifying that `value` is required for operators `equals`, `not_equals`,
`contains`, `not_contains`, `exists`/`not_exists` (where applicable) and
`values` is required for `in`/`not_in`; reference the `value`, `values`,
`operator`, and `source` fields and add a short note like “Exactly one of
`value` or `values` must be supplied” so clients cannot send both.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx`:
- Line 66: The doc text incorrectly claims init_rules is “same shape as the
input selector”; instead state that init_rules reflects the stored selector with
any defaulted fields (e.g., operator) expanded — i.e., the response may include
explicit operator defaults that callers can omit in the request. Update the
single sentence referencing init_rules/selector to note that server-side
defaults (such as operator) are populated in the response so integrators know
the returned shape can include those defaulted fields.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx`:
- Around line 35-41: The doc currently allows ambiguous payloads by not stating
exclusivity between `value` and `values`; update the table and surrounding text
to require exactly one of `value` or `values` be provided (mutually exclusive),
clarifying that `value` is required for operators `equals`, `not_equals`,
`contains`, `not_contains`, `exists`/`not_exists` (where applicable) and
`values` is required for `in`/`not_in`; reference the `value`, `values`,
`operator`, and `source` fields and add a short note like “Exactly one of
`value` or `values` must be supplied” so clients cannot send both.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 5f3a3c6e-9f85-4506-b62e-a9d45da6a3c0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e991911 and c592c52.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Fix init_rules “same shape” wording mismatch.

Line 66 says init_rules has the same shape as input selector, but the response example includes explicit operator defaults that input can omit. This can confuse integrators.

🛠️ Suggested wording update

-Returns the created auto monitor setup object. The `init_rules` array reflects the stored selector — same shape as the input `selector`.
+Returns the created auto monitor setup object. The `init_rules` array reflects the stored selector and may include defaulted fields (for example, `operator: "equals"`).

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx` at line
66, The doc text incorrectly claims init_rules is “same shape as the input
selector”; instead state that init_rules reflects the stored selector with any
defaulted fields (e.g., operator) expanded — i.e., the response may include
explicit operator defaults that callers can omit in the request. Update the
single sentence referencing init_rules/selector to note that server-side
defaults (such as operator) are populated in the response so integrators know
the returned shape can include those defaulted fields.

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx (1)

30-31: Clarify behavior when selector is omitted or empty.

The selector field lacks the required attribute, implying it's optional. Consider adding a sentence explaining what happens if the selector is not provided or is an empty array (e.g., "If omitted, all spans will be evaluated" or "At least one rule is required").

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx` around
lines 30 - 31, The ParamField documentation for "selector" is unclear about
optional/empty behavior; update the "selector" description (ParamField
body="selector") to explicitly state what happens if the selector is omitted or
provided as an empty array—e.g., add a sentence like "If omitted or empty, all
spans will be evaluated" or, if the implementation requires at least one rule,
state "At least one rule is required; an empty or omitted selector will result
in [validation/error/none]"—so readers know whether the field is optional and
the system's runtime behavior.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx`:
- Around line 30-31: The ParamField documentation for "selector" is unclear
about optional/empty behavior; update the "selector" description (ParamField
body="selector") to explicitly state what happens if the selector is omitted or
provided as an empty array—e.g., add a sentence like "If omitted or empty, all
spans will be evaluated" or, if the implementation requires at least one rule,
state "At least one rule is required; an empty or omitted selector will result
in [validation/error/none]"—so readers know whether the field is optional and
the system's runtime behavior.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 8598e731-1855-406f-b869-5b9f14b3eec7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c592c52 and 848d9ea.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• api-reference/auto-monitor-setups/create-an-auto-monitor-setup.mdx