Skip to content

Conversation

@parthea
Copy link
Contributor

@parthea parthea commented Nov 5, 2025

This PR resolves the following issues when running librarian generate for googleapis-common-protos.

  • .repo-metadata.json is included in the generated output
time=2025-11-05T17:00:04.479Z level=ERROR msg="librarian command failed" err="file existed in destination: /usr/local/google/home/partheniou/git/google-cloud-python/packages/googleapis-common-protos/.repo-metadata.json"
  • README.rst is included in the generated output
time=2025-11-05T17:03:18.077Z level=ERROR msg="librarian command failed" err="file existed in destination: /usr/local/google/home/partheniou/git/google-cloud-python/packages/googleapis-common-protos/README.rst"
  • docs/summary_overview.md is included in the generated output
time=2025-11-05T17:03:56.453Z level=ERROR msg="librarian command failed" err="file existed in destination: /usr/local/google/home/partheniou/git/google-cloud-python/packages/googleapis-common-protos/docs/summary_overview.md"
  • *.proto files are included in the generated output
time=2025-11-05T17:04:30.389Z level=ERROR msg="librarian command failed" err="file existed in destination: /usr/local/google/home/partheniou/git/google-cloud-python/packages/googleapis-common-protos/google/api/annotations.proto"
  • add google/logging which was missed
time=2025-11-05T17:07:43.492Z level=ERROR msg="librarian command failed" err="file existed in destination: /usr/local/google/home/partheniou/git/google-cloud-python/packages/googleapis-common-protos/google/logging/type/http_request.proto"

This also uncovered an issue where we were not generating code for https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/blob/master/google/cloud/common_resources.proto. I'll address this in a separate PR

@parthea parthea requested review from a team as code owners November 5, 2025 17:17
@parthea parthea merged commit 881963d into main Nov 5, 2025
25 checks passed
@parthea parthea deleted the fix-remove-regex-googleapis-common-protos branch November 5, 2025 18:01
parthea added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
parthea added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
The commit body is not needed when creating release notes. It was
originally added to workaround
googleapis/librarian#2234. As per
googleapis/librarian#2234 (comment),
we should not include the body in the release notes.

Without the fix in this PR, the changelog for `googleapis-common-protos`
looks like this
```

## [1.72.0](googleapis-common-protos-v1.71.0...googleapis-common-protos-v1.72.0) (2025-11-05)


### Features

* add common_resources.proto (#14851) This PR depends on
#14850
`google/cloud` was not listed as an api path for
`googleapis-common-protos` for code was not being generated for
https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/blob/master/google/cloud/extended_operations.proto
and
https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/blob/master/google/cloud/common_resources.proto ([e4e0e2a](e4e0e2a))
* add field api_version to message ServiceForTransport (#14843) This PR was created locally. The reason that this could not be automated
is that the current directory structure
[gapic/metadata](https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/tree/master/gapic/metadata)
doesn't align with the protobuf package name
[google.gapic.metadata](https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/blob/53af3b727f84acc34e31c23f3b6e7b8aa4b7e837/gapic/metadata/gapic_metadata.proto#L18).
The expected directory structure for `google.gapic.metadata` is
`google/gapic/metadata`.
In the `googleapis-common-protos` package, the `gencode` is in the
expected location ([81812fd](81812fd))
```

With the fix, the changelog for `googleapis-common-protos` looks like
this

```

## [1.72.0](googleapis-common-protos-v1.71.0...googleapis-common-protos-v1.72.0) (2025-11-05)


### Features

* add common_resources.proto (#14851) ([e4e0e2a](e4e0e2a))
* add field api_version to message ServiceForTransport (#14843) ([81812fd](81812fd))
```
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants