refactor(internal/librarian): remove specification-format flag

[julieqiu]

The specification format is only used for 2 libraries (compute and secretmanager-openapi) so this flag isn't necessary. If a non-protobuf source is ever needed, the librarian.yaml can be edited directly.

For #3391

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @julieqiu, 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 refactors the internal librarian tool by removing the --specification-format command-line flag and its associated logic. This change streamlines the create command, as the flag was found to be redundant, primarily serving only the compute library. Users needing to specify a non-protobuf source can now directly modify the librarian.yaml configuration file, simplifying the command-line interface and reducing unnecessary complexity in the codebase.

Highlights

• Command-line Flag Removal: The --specification-format flag has been removed from the create command as it was only relevant for the compute library and is no longer necessary.
• Function Signature Updates: The runCreate and addLibraryToLibrarianConfig functions have been refactored to no longer accept the specFormat parameter, simplifying their interfaces.
• Configuration Structure Simplification: The SpecificationFormat field is no longer set when adding a new library to the librarian.yaml configuration, streamlining the library configuration.
• Test Case Adjustments: Corresponding test cases in create_test.go have been updated to reflect the removal of the specification-format parameter and field.

🧠 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 is a straightforward refactoring that removes the --specification-format flag from the create command. The change is well-justified in the description, as the flag was unnecessary. The implementation correctly removes the flag and updates all related function calls and tests. My review found a couple of minor style guide violations in the test files where redundant return statements were added after calls to t.Fatal and t.Fatalf, which I've commented on.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.38%. Comparing base (ff119d5) to head (c5c42a8).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/librarian/create.go	71.42%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3401      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.38%   80.38%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         163      163              
  Lines       13929    13922       -7     
==========================================
- Hits        11197    11191       -6     
+ Misses       2167     2166       -1     
  Partials      565      565              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.