Import validation improvements

[vish-cs]

• Use prefix for import lint checks
• Remove data_source from validation config
• Rename validations for better readability
• Remove redundantant configs due to deep merge

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @vish-cs, 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 introduces significant refinements to the import validation system. The primary goal is to enhance the clarity, maintainability, and efficiency of validation rules. This is achieved through more descriptive naming conventions for validation checks, the removal of redundant configuration fields, and a more intelligent approach to handling lint checks. These changes simplify the configuration process and improve the overall robustness of the validation framework.

Highlights

• Validation Rule Renaming: Validation rules and their corresponding functions/variables have been renamed for improved clarity and consistency, e.g., 'DELETED_COUNT' is now 'DELETED_RECORDS_COUNT'.
• Simplified Validation Configuration: The explicit 'data_source' field has been removed from validation configurations. The system now implicitly determines the data source based on the validator type, streamlining configuration files.
• Consolidated Configurations: Redundant validation configuration files have been removed, leveraging deep merge capabilities to centralize and simplify the overall configuration structure.
• Enhanced Lint Check Logic: The logic for lint checks, specifically for missing references, has been improved to aggregate counts based on a prefix, making it more robust and comprehensive.

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 introduces several valuable improvements to the import validation framework. The changes, including renaming validators for clarity, simplifying configurations by removing the explicit data_source, and making lint checks more robust, enhance the system's maintainability and usability. The code is well-structured and the updates are consistently applied across configurations, application code, and tests. The identified minor naming issues in the details dictionary of the validation results are valid and should be addressed.