search

googleapis / google-api-dotnet-client

Google APIs Client Library for .NET
https://developers.google.com/api-client-library/dotnet
Apache License 2.0
1.35k stars 526 forks source link

Google.Apis.DoubleClickBidManager.v1 missing enum value for reporting Filter enum #1284

Closed dannystommen closed 6 years ago

dannystommen commented 6 years ago

According the DBM documentation (https://developers.google.com/bid-manager/v1/filters-metrics) filter FILTER_ACTIVITY_ID is deprecated in 1-2 weeks, and should be replaced by FILTER_FLOODLIGHT_ACTIVITY_ID (or FILTER_DV360_ACTIVITY_ID). However, both these enums (and probably more) are not yet available in the enum Google.DoubleClickBidManager.API.Enums.Filter.

Any plans on adding this soon?

Thanks, Danny

jskeet commented 6 years ago

Hmm... it looks like this is already available in the discovery doc - Chris, any idea why it's not being generated?

chrisdunelm commented 6 years ago

These new filter values are present in the discovery-doc: https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis/doubleclickbidmanager/v1/rest So they should be present in the built package, and the generated source here: https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-dotnet-client/blob/master/Src/Generated/Google.Apis.DoubleClickBidManager.v1/Google.Apis.DoubleClickBidManager.v1.cs However they are not. I'll have a look to see why they're missing. Thanks for flagging this up.

chrisdunelm commented 6 years ago

As far as I can see, these enums are entirely missing from the generated code. Not sure why at the moment.

chrisdunelm commented 6 years ago

@dannystommen It looks as though these have never been generated as enums; and the C# property that needs to be set with this value is a string - e.g. FilterPair.Type - so it looks as if you need to copy/paste the enum string as a string literal in your code. E.g. myFilterPair.Type = "FILTER_FLOODLIGHT_ACTIVITY_ID";

Please let us know if this does not work.

dannystommen commented 6 years ago

feel really dumb right now.. I see that we made a small wrapper around this library, we're we have this enum created ourselfs (for easier use). So yes, adding this is no problem at all.

chrisdunelm commented 6 years ago

No problem, thanks for letting us know :)