chore: adds claim input component example to oapi schema

[semmet95]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added example values to the ProofInput API schema to help clarify expected data structure and usage.

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR adds an example block to the ProofInput schema in the OpenAPI specification, providing representative sample values for the four required fields: claimUriDigest, supportsClaim, reviewedBy, and uri.

Changes

OpenAPI Schema Examples

Layer / File(s)	Summary
ProofInput example api/source-score.yaml	The ProofInput schema now includes an example object with sample values for claimUriDigest, supportsClaim, reviewedBy, and uri, improving documentation clarity for API consumers.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• SatyaLens/source-score#114: Adds example block to components.schemas.SourceInput in the same OpenAPI specification file, following an identical pattern.
• SatyaLens/source-score#113: Adds example block to ClaimInput schema in the same file, representing a consistent schema documentation enhancement pattern.

Poem

🐰 A proof needs an example true,
With values plain for all to view,
The schema grows more clear and bright,
With sample data shining bright! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: adds claim input component example to oapi schema' accurately describes the main change—adding an example to the ProofInput schema in the OpenAPI specification.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

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

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/proof-input-example

---

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]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

api/source-score.yaml (1)

726-729: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick win

Add supportsClaim to the required fields array.

The supportsClaim field is semantically essential (the API description states proofs must "either support or refute a claim"), has binding: required validation tags (line 743), and is required in the corresponding Proof entity schema (line 770). However, it's missing from the ProofInput required array.

🔧 Proposed fix

     required:
     - claimUriDigest
+    - supportsClaim
     - reviewedBy
     - uri

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@api/source-score.yaml` around lines 726 - 729, The ProofInput schema's
required array is missing the supportsClaim field; update the ProofInput
required list to include "supportsClaim" so it matches the binding: required
validation on supportsClaim and the Proof entity schema, ensuring ProofInput,
supportsClaim, and the required array remain consistent.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Outside diff comments:
In `@api/source-score.yaml`:
- Around line 726-729: The ProofInput schema's required array is missing the
supportsClaim field; update the ProofInput required list to include
"supportsClaim" so it matches the binding: required validation on supportsClaim
and the Proof entity schema, ensuring ProofInput, supportsClaim, and the
required array remain consistent.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1a04738e-6d56-402c-93b4-3fcaadef6085

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d2d96d2 and 928202b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• api/source-score.yaml

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

_{Re-trigger cubic}