Add resource name and allow_missing param to source map registration

[tonybaroneee]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @tonybaroneee, 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 enhances the Crashlytics source map upload functionality by modifying the registration process to be more robust. By introducing an allowMissing flag, the system can now handle source map registration as an upsert operation, streamlining the workflow and reducing the need for explicit existence checks before attempting to register a source map.

Highlights

• Crashlytics Source Map Registration: The registerSourceMap function now includes an allowMissing: true flag in its API call to the Crashlytics backend. This effectively transforms the operation into an upsert, meaning it will create the source map if it doesn't exist or update it if it does, without needing a prior check for existence.
• Test Coverage: A new assertion has been added to the crashlytics-sourcemap-upload.spec.ts file to verify that the allowMissing: true parameter is correctly passed in the API request arguments during source map registration.

🧠 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.

Changelog

• src/commands/crashlytics-sourcemap-upload.spec.ts
  • Added an expect assertion to verify that allowMissing: true is passed in the API call arguments during source map registration tests.
• src/commands/crashlytics-sourcemap-upload.ts
  • Modified the registerSourceMap function to include allowMissing: true in the POST request body when registering source maps with the Crashlytics API, treating the operation as an upsert.

Activity

• No specific activity (comments, reviews, etc.) has been recorded for this pull request yet.

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 adds the allowMissing parameter to the Crashlytics source map registration call, intending to treat it as an upsert. While the change is functionally correct within the test environment, I've identified a potential issue regarding how the allowMissing parameter is passed. Typically, in Google APIs, such parameters are sent as query parameters rather than in the request body. I've provided suggestions to refactor the code to use query parameters, which aligns better with common API design patterns and should ensure the feature works as expected with the live service. This change requires updates to both the implementation and the corresponding test.