chore(all): split .repo-metadata-full.json into per-API .repo-metadata.json files

[quartzmo]

Prepare google-cloud-go for Librarian generation of .repo-metadata.json files.

refs: googleapis/librarian#2527

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @quartzmo, 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 significantly refactors the metadata management within the 'google-cloud-go' repository. It transitions from a single, comprehensive '.repo-metadata-full.json' file to a distributed structure where each API client library now possesses its own dedicated '.repo-metadata.json' file. This strategic move is aimed at preparing the repository for seamless integration with the Librarian tool, which will automate the generation and maintenance of these metadata files, thereby enhancing consistency and efficiency across the project.

Highlights

• Metadata Restructuring: The monolithic '.repo-metadata-full.json' file has been replaced with individual '.repo-metadata.json' files for each API client library.
• Librarian Integration: This change is a foundational step to enable automated generation and management of repository metadata by the Librarian tool.

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 splits a single .repo-metadata-full.json file into many per-API .repo-metadata.json files. This is a large, automated change. My review found several inconsistencies and errors across the newly generated files, which suggests the generation script may have some bugs.

The most critical issues are mismatches between a file's location and the distribution_name and client_documentation values within it. There are also cases of incorrect api_shortname and description values, likely from copy-paste errors, and a malformed URL.

Additionally, I've noted some medium-severity issues, such as the use of overly generic api_shortnames which could lead to conflicts, and a few files where JSON keys are not alphabetically sorted, breaking consistency with the majority of the files.

Please review the detailed comments for each affected file. Given the number of issues, it would be best to fix the generation script and re-run it to ensure all files are correct and consistent.

[gemini-code-assist]

The distribution_name and client_documentation values point to .../dialogflow/cx/apiv3beta1, but this file is located at dialogflow/apiv3beta1. This seems to be a mismatch. The values should probably correspond to the file's location.

[gemini-code-assist]

The api_shortname is "analyticshub" and the description is "Analytics Hub API", but this file is for bigquery/dataexchange. These values appear to be incorrect and likely copied from the Analytics Hub metadata. They should be updated to reflect the Data Exchange API.

[gemini-code-assist]

The distribution_name and client_documentation values point to .../publicca/apiv1beta1, but this file is located at security/apiv1beta1. This seems to be a mismatch. The values should probably correspond to the file's location.

[gemini-code-assist]

The distribution_name and client_documentation values point to .../publicca/apiv1, but this file is located at security/apiv1. This seems to be a mismatch. The values should probably correspond to the file's location.

[gemini-code-assist]

There are two issues with this file:

1. The distribution_name and client_documentation values point to .../v2/apiv1beta1, but this file is located at recaptchaenterprise/apiv1beta1. This seems to be a mismatch. The values should probably correspond to the file's location.
2. The keys in this JSON file are not alphabetically sorted, which is inconsistent with the other metadata files in this pull request.

For consistency, please correct the paths and sort the keys.

[chingor13]

I approved for the format and locations of the new files

[shollyman]

Question about our services with v2 modules (pubsub/v2 and bigquery/v2).

pubsub/v2 has handwritten code and is released, should there's be a metadata file there?

bigquery/v2 is similar, but it's also still unreleased so I'm less clear.

[quartzmo]

@hongalex The pubsub repo metadata CONTENT is unchanged from what it was. Please let me know if we need to fix anything going forward.

[shollyman]

Approving for now, the v2 metadata issue can be tackled via followups and doens't need to block this split.