feat(agencyclients): expose five nested *FieldNames on agencyclients get by axisrow · Pull Request #419 · axisrow/direct-cli

axisrow · 2026-05-28T04:07:13Z

Summary

Add five --*-field-names flags to direct agencyclients get for the nested WSDL *FieldNames parameters declared by AgencyClientsGetRequest:
- --contract-field-names (ContractInfoFieldEnum)
- --contragent-field-names (ContragentInfoFieldEnum)
- --contragent-tin-info-field-names (TinInfoFieldEnum)
- --organization-field-names (OrgInfoFieldEnum)
- --tin-info-field-names (TinInfoFieldEnum)
Add --dry-run for parity with every other read-path command (matching rationale added to DRY_RUN_PAYLOAD_EXCLUSIONS).
Mirrors PR feat(clients): expose five nested *FieldNames on clients get #418 (clients) which exposes the exact same five enums on the sibling request. Help strings reference AgencyClientsGetRequest WSDL.
Remove the five corresponding rows from NESTED_FIELDNAMES_EXCLUSIONS.

Closes #407. Fifth PR in Wave 2 milestone 0.3.14.

Test plan

pytest tests/test_api_coverage.py::test_every_nested_fieldnames_param_has_cli_option — passes after row removal.
pytest tests/test_dry_run.py -k agencyclients_get — 8 new tests pass.
pytest tests/test_api_coverage.py tests/test_cli.py tests/test_comprehensive.py — 247 tests pass.
direct agencyclients get --help | grep field-names — 5 new flags + existing --fields visible.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Add `--contract-field-names`, `--contragent-field-names`, `--contragent-tin-info-field-names`, `--organization-field-names`, and `--tin-info-field-names` to `direct agencyclients get` for the five nested WSDL `*FieldNames` request parameters declared by `AgencyClientsGetRequest` (`ContractInfoFieldEnum`, `ContragentInfoFieldEnum`, `TinInfoFieldEnum`, `OrgInfoFieldEnum`, `TinInfoFieldEnum`). Mirrors PR #418 (clients) which exposes the exact same five enums on the sibling `clients get` request. Also add `--dry-run` for parity with every other read-path command, and the matching rationale in DRY_RUN_PAYLOAD_EXCLUSIONS. Each flag parses CSV via `parse_csv_strings`, rejects empty input with `click.UsageError`, and only injects the WSDL key when non-empty. The five options share one selector loop. Removes the corresponding rows from `NESTED_FIELDNAMES_EXCLUSIONS` so `test_every_nested_fieldnames_param_has_cli_option` enforces all five flags. Adds parametrized dry-run tests for payload, default-omission, `--help` visibility, and empty-CSV rejection. Closes #407. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <[email protected]>

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

axisrow · 2026-05-28T04:38:57Z

@claude review. Focus on critical issues: bugs, security vulnerabilities, logical errors, data loss risks, performance problems. Do NOT nitpick style, naming conventions, minor formatting, or subjective preferences — only flag issues that could break functionality or cause real harm in production.

claude · 2026-05-28T04:39:08Z

Claude finished @axisrow's task in 2m 33s —— View job

Claude Code Review

Read changed files (direct_cli/commands/agencyclients.py, tests, coverage)
Verified WSDL parameter names against tests/wsdl_cache/agencyclients.xml:66-72
Checked parse_csv_strings edge cases for empty/whitespace input
Confirmed dry-run path, exception handling, and test coverage

No critical issues found. The five flags map 1:1 to the WSDL elements, the params.update(parsed_nested) placement matches the sibling-element structure of AgencyClientsGetRequest, and the empty/whitespace rejection logic is sound.

What I verified

Check	Result
WSDL element name parity (5 nested `*FieldNames`)	✅ `ContractFieldNames`, `ContragentFieldNames`, `ContragentTinInfoFieldNames`, `OrganizationFieldNames`, `TinInfoFieldNames` all match `agencyclients.xml:68-72`
Top-level placement	✅ Sibling of `FieldNames` per WSDL — `params.update(parsed_nested)` is correct
Empty-CSV rejection	✅ `parse_csv_strings(",")` and `parse_csv_strings("")` both return `None`; the `raw_value is not None and not parsed` guard fires `UsageError` correctly (`direct_cli/commands/agencyclients.py:155-160`)
`UsageError` not swallowed	✅ `except click.UsageError: raise` at L191 prevents the broad `except Exception` at L193 from converting it to `print_error` + abort, preserving Click's exit code 2
Default omission	✅ When a flag is absent, `parse_csv_strings(None)` returns `None`, no key injected — schema treats them as `minOccurs=0`
Smoke-matrix safety	✅ `agencyclients.get` is `SAFE` in `direct_cli/smoke_matrix.py:28`; no mutation surface added
Test coverage	✅ Payload, default-omission, help visibility, and empty-CSV rejection are all parametrized across the five flags
`NESTED_FIELDNAMES_EXCLUSIONS` cleanup	✅ All five `agencyclients.get` rows removed; `test_every_nested_fieldnames_param_has_cli_option` will now enforce them
`DRY_RUN_PAYLOAD_EXCLUSIONS` rationale	✅ New entry is a legitimate read-path exclusion (covered by SelectionCriteria tests), matching the allowed categories in `CLAUDE.md`

Minor observations (non-blocking)

create_client(...) is called before the new validation block at L147-162, so an empty-CSV UsageError happens after credentials are resolved. Not a bug — create_client is lazy and makes no network call, and this matches the existing pattern in the file.
Naming: --organization-field-names ↔ OrganizationFieldNames and --tin-info-field-names ↔ TinInfoFieldNames (note the Tin vs TIN styling), which matches the WSDL casing exactly. Good.

LGTM from a correctness/safety standpoint.
· feat/407-agencyclients-nested-field-names

Resolve conflicts with #415 #416 #417 #418: keep all five CHANGELOG entries ordered by merge time and append agencyclients tests after the feeds/keywords/creatives/clients blocks in test_dry_run.py.

Resolve conflicts with #415 #416 #417 #418 #419: keep all six CHANGELOG entries ordered by merge time and append adgroups tests after the feeds/keywords/creatives/clients/agencyclients blocks in test_dry_run.py.

Resolve conflicts with #415 #416 #417 #418 #419 #420: keep all six previously-merged CHANGELOG entries (feeds/keywords/creatives/clients/ agencyclients/adgroups) and place the campaigns BREAKING CHANGES block at the end of Unreleased. Drop the already-removed NESTED_FIELDNAMES_EXCLUSIONS rows. Update the surviving legacy `-fields` test fixtures to the new `-field-names` form, while keeping one explicit rejection test for `--text-campaign-fields` (the old name).

Resolve conflicts with #415 #416 #417 #418 #419 #420 #421: keep all six previously-merged CHANGELOG entries (feeds/keywords/creatives/clients/ agencyclients/adgroups), the campaigns BREAKING CHANGES block, and add the bidmodifiers entry as a separate 'Additional features' block. Drop already-removed NESTED_FIELDNAMES_EXCLUSIONS rows. Append bidmodifiers tests after the canonical campaigns block in test_dry_run.py.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 28, 2026 04:07

Copilot AI reviewed May 28, 2026

Merge main into feat/407-agencyclients-nested-field-names

5f8f252

Resolve conflicts with #415 #416 #417 #418: keep all five CHANGELOG entries ordered by merge time and append agencyclients tests after the feeds/keywords/creatives/clients blocks in test_dry_run.py.

axisrow merged commit 61f8ef9 into main May 28, 2026
6 checks passed

axisrow deleted the feat/407-agencyclients-nested-field-names branch May 28, 2026 04:50

This was referenced May 28, 2026

Wave 2: expose remaining nested *FieldNames request parameters as CLI options #402

Closed

audit: снимок покрытия Yandex Direct API после волны #415–#425 (v5 ✅, v4 23/33) #428

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat(agencyclients): expose five nested *FieldNames on agencyclients get#419

feat(agencyclients): expose five nested *FieldNames on agencyclients get#419
axisrow merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
feat/407-agencyclients-nested-field-names

axisrow commented May 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

axisrow commented May 28, 2026

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented May 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

axisrow commented May 28, 2026

Summary

Test plan

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

axisrow commented May 28, 2026

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented May 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Claude Code Review

What I verified

Minor observations (non-blocking)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

claude Bot commented May 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading