fix(py/genkit): type errors in veneer_test.py and test_models.py

[yesudeep]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @yesudeep, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves type errors within the Python Genkit package by updating how content 'Part' objects are structured and instantiated. The core changes involve wrapping content types like text and tool requests within a root attribute of the Part object, ensuring better type enforcement. Additionally, it standardizes naming conventions for tool definitions and evaluation data points, improving overall API consistency and maintainability.

Highlights

• Type System Alignment for Part Objects: The way 'Part' objects are constructed has been updated across various test files. Previously, content like text or tool requests were passed directly (e.g., Part(text='hi')). Now, they are explicitly wrapped within a 'root' attribute using specific content types (e.g., Part(root=TextPart(text='hi')) or Part(root=ToolRequestPart(tool_request=...))). This change enhances type safety and clarity in handling diverse content within the Genkit framework.
• Naming Convention Standardization: Several fields have been renamed to align with consistent naming conventions. Specifically, input_schema in ToolDefinition has been changed to inputSchema, and test_case_id in evaluation data points (BaseEvalDataPoint, EvalFnResponse) has been updated to testCaseId. These adjustments likely reflect a move towards camelCase for certain API parameters.
• Refined Document Part Handling: The instantiation of DocumentPart objects has also been updated to follow the new root attribute pattern, changing from DocumentPart(text='...') to DocumentPart(root=TextPart(text='...')).

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses type errors in veneer_test.py and test_models.py. The changes primarily involve refactoring the instantiation of Part objects to be more explicit (e.g., Part(root=TextPart(...))) and updating some field names from snake_case to camelCase to align with Pydantic model aliases. These changes are well-executed and improve the correctness and consistency of the test suite. I've identified one minor instance where the refactoring was missed and have left a suggestion to complete it.