refactor(provider/client): use protobuf BidScreeningResponse for Vali…

[troian]

…date

📝 Description

[Explain what this PR does in 2-3 sentences. Include context about the feature or problem being solved]

🔧 Purpose of the Change

• New feature implementation
• Bug fix
• Documentation update
• Code refactoring
• Dependency upgrade
• Other: [specify]

📌 Related Issues

• Closes #ISSUE_NUMBER
• References #ISSUE_NUMBER

✅ Checklist

• I've updated relevant documentation
• Code follows Akash Network's style guide
• I've added/updated relevant unit tests
• Dependencies have been properly updated
• I agree and adhered to the Contribution Guidelines

📎 Notes for Reviewers

[Include any additional context, architectural decisions, or specific areas to focus on]

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes replace a custom ValidateGroupSpecResult return type with the protobuf-generated providerv1.BidScreeningResponse type in the provider client's Validate method, updating the method signature and removing the now-unused type definition.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Validate Method & Return Type Refactoring go/provider/client/client.go, go/provider/client/types.go	Updated Validate method to return (*providerv1.BidScreeningResponse, error) instead of (ValidateGroupSpecResult, error). Added import for providerv1, adjusted error returns to (nil, err), and removed the ValidateGroupSpecResult type definition and associated sdk import.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Poem

🐰 A type once lived in client code,
Now replaced with proto's load,
BidScreeningResponse takes the stage,
ValidateGroupSpecResult turns the page! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The PR description uses the provided template but fails to complete the critical 📝 Description section - it shows only the placeholder text without explaining what the PR does or providing context about the problem being solved.	Complete the 📝 Description section with 2-3 sentences explaining the refactoring's purpose, benefits, and why using BidScreeningResponse is preferred over the previous ValidateGroupSpecResult.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main change: refactoring the provider/client code to use the protobuf BidScreeningResponse type for the Validate method. The change aligns with the file modifications described in the raw_summary.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

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

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings (stacked PR)
• 📝 Generate docstrings (commit on current branch)

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch refactor/provider-client-bid-screening

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

go/provider/client/client.go (1)

411-413: Use protojson instead of encoding/json for protobuf message decoding.

At line 412, BidScreeningResponse (a protobuf message) is decoded using encoding/json. The standard JSON encoder does not honor protobuf JSON field mappings—specifically, the ResourceOffer field has a protobuf json_name of resourceOffer but the Go struct tag expects resource_offer. If the validate endpoint returns protobuf-formatted JSON, this mismatch will cause the field to be silently dropped. Use protojson.Unmarshal instead.

🔧 Suggested change

 import (
   "bytes"
   "context"
   "crypto"
   "crypto/tls"
   "crypto/x509"
   "encoding/json"
   "errors"
   "fmt"
   "io"
   "math/big"
   "net/http"
   "net/url"
   "strconv"
   "strings"
   "time"
 
   "github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5"
   "github.com/gorilla/websocket"
   "k8s.io/client-go/tools/remotecommand"
+  "google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/protojson"
   ...
 )
 ...
 var obj providerv1.BidScreeningResponse
-if err = json.NewDecoder(buf).Decode(&obj); err != nil {
+if err = protojson.UnmarshalOptions{DiscardUnknown: true}.Unmarshal(buf.Bytes(), &obj); err != nil {
     return nil, err
 }

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@go/provider/client/client.go` around lines 411 - 413, The code decodes a
protobuf message using encoding/json which doesn’t respect protobuf JSON
mappings; replace the json.NewDecoder(buf).Decode(&obj) call for
providerv1.BidScreeningResponse with protojson.Unmarshal on the buffer bytes
(e.g., protojson.Unmarshal(buf.Bytes(), &obj)) and add the
google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/protojson import so the ResourceOffer and
other protobuf-json mapped fields are decoded correctly.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@go/provider/client/client.go`:
- Around line 411-413: The code decodes a protobuf message using encoding/json
which doesn’t respect protobuf JSON mappings; replace the
json.NewDecoder(buf).Decode(&obj) call for providerv1.BidScreeningResponse with
protojson.Unmarshal on the buffer bytes (e.g., protojson.Unmarshal(buf.Bytes(),
&obj)) and add the google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/protojson import so the
ResourceOffer and other protobuf-json mapped fields are decoded correctly.

---

ℹ️ Review info

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1fadf95 and 723f403.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• go/provider/client/client.go
• go/provider/client/types.go

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• go/provider/client/types.go