LCORE-632: Added missing fields for responses

[tisnik]

Description

LCORE-632: Added missing fields for responses

Type of change

• Refactor
• New feature
• Bug fix
• CVE fix
• Optimization
• Documentation Update
• Configuration Update
• Bump-up service version
• Bump-up dependent library
• Bump-up library or tool used for development (does not change the final image)
• CI configuration change
• Konflux configuration change
• Unit tests improvement
• Integration tests improvement
• End to end tests improvement

Related Tickets & Documents

• Related Issue #LCORE-632

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Improved API documentation by adding descriptive metadata and example payloads to response fields across feedback, status, and conversation endpoints.
  • Autogenerated docs (e.g., OpenAPI/Swagger) now display clearer field descriptions and realistic examples to guide integration.
  • Client developers benefit from better type hints and validation cues when building against the API.
  • No changes to behavior or control flow; existing integrations continue to work as before.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added Pydantic Field metadata (descriptions and examples) to several response model fields in src/models/responses.py. No control-flow or runtime logic changes; only schema annotations updated for FeedbackResponse, StatusResponse, and ConversationResponse.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of changes
Response model metadata updates src/models/responses.py	Converted plain attributes to Pydantic Field(...) with descriptions and examples: FeedbackResponse.response; StatusResponse.functionality, StatusResponse.status; ConversationResponse.conversation_id, ConversationResponse.chat_history.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• LCORE-390: fields in response structures #399 — Similar addition of Pydantic Field metadata in src/models/responses.py for response models.
• Fields for responses #621 — Related refactor replacing plain fields with Field(...) including descriptions/examples in response schemas.

Poem

I nibble on docs like tender clover,
Tagging fields with meaning over.
Examples sprout, descriptions bloom,
In schemas’ tidy, labeled room.
Hop, hop—metadata cheer!
Our models speak more clearly here. 🐇✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title refers to adding missing response fields, which is somewhat related to the updates in response models but inaccurately suggests new fields were introduced rather than existing ones being enhanced with metadata.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

src/models/responses.py (2)

364-368: Remove trailing period for consistency.

The description ends with a period, which is inconsistent with other Field descriptions in this file (e.g., lines 42, 50, 92, 175). Remove the trailing period to maintain consistency.

Apply this diff:

-        description="The response of the feedback request.",
+        description="The response of the feedback request",

---

404-408: Consider more specific type annotation.

The dict type annotation could be more precise (e.g., dict[str, Any] or dict[str, bool] based on the example). However, this is optional and the current annotation is functional.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 00f242b and b4e9bed.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/models/responses.py (3 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (4)

src/**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

Use absolute imports for internal modules (e.g., from auth import get_auth_dependency)

Files:

• src/models/responses.py

**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

**/*.py: All modules start with descriptive module-level docstrings explaining purpose
Use logger = logging.getLogger(name) for module logging after import logging
Define type aliases at module level for clarity
All functions require docstrings with brief descriptions
Provide complete type annotations for all function parameters and return types
Use typing_extensions.Self in model validators where appropriate
Use modern union syntax (str | int) and Optional[T] or T | None consistently
Function names use snake_case with descriptive, action-oriented prefixes (get_, validate_, check_)
Avoid in-place parameter modification; return new data structures instead of mutating arguments
Use appropriate logging levels: debug, info, warning, error with clear messages
All classes require descriptive docstrings explaining purpose
Class names use PascalCase with conventional suffixes (Configuration, Error/Exception, Resolver, Interface)
Abstract base classes should use abc.ABC and @AbstractMethod for interfaces
Provide complete type annotations for all class attributes
Follow Google Python docstring style for modules, classes, and functions, including Args, Returns, Raises, Attributes sections as needed

Files:

• src/models/responses.py

src/{models/**/*.py,configuration.py}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

src/{models/**/*.py,configuration.py}: Use @field_validator and @model_validator for custom validation in Pydantic models
Use precise type hints in configuration (e.g., Optional[FilePath], PositiveInt, SecretStr)

Files:

• src/models/responses.py

src/models/**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

src/models/**/*.py: Pydantic models: use BaseModel for data models and extend ConfigurationBase for configuration
Use @model_validator and @field_validator for Pydantic model validation

Files:

• src/models/responses.py

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: build-pr
• GitHub Check: e2e_tests

🔇 Additional comments (3)

src/models/responses.py (3)

398-402: LGTM!

The Field metadata is correctly added with appropriate description and example.

---

523-527: LGTM!

The Field metadata is correctly added with appropriate description and example.

---

529-542: LGTM!

The Field metadata is correctly added with appropriate description and example structure.