Return SwapperError object

[0xh3rman]

No description provided.

[semanticdiff-com]

Review changes with  

Changed Files

File	Status
apps/api/src/index.ts	36% smaller
scripts/prepare_typeshare.py	4% smaller
packages/swapper/src/mayan/index.ts	3% smaller
packages/swapper/src/mayan/error.ts	0% smaller
packages/swapper/src/mayan/provider.ts	0% smaller
packages/types/src/index.ts	0% smaller
packages/types/src/primitives/index.ts	0% smaller
packages/types/src/primitives/swap/Error.ts	0% smaller
packages/types/src/primitives/swap/Mod.ts	0% smaller
scripts/templates/primitives_index.ts	0% smaller

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @0xh3rman, 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 enhances the API's error reporting by implementing a structured SwapperError object for all error responses. It also introduces API versioning to manage the transition to these new error formats and automates the generation of error types from the backend, improving overall robustness and developer experience.

Highlights

• Structured Error Responses: The API endpoints now return a SwapperError object for errors, providing more detailed and structured error information instead of generic error messages. Successful responses are wrapped in an ok object.
• API Versioning for Errors: A versioning mechanism has been introduced for API responses, allowing clients to request structured error objects based on a version query parameter, ensuring backward compatibility.
• Dynamic Error Type Generation: The SwapperError type is now automatically generated from the Rust swapper crate using the typeshare tool, ensuring consistency between frontend and backend error definitions and reducing manual synchronization.
• New Request Field: An optional use_max_amount field has been added to the ProxyQuoteRequest interface, providing more flexibility for quote requests.

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 structured error handling by returning SwapperError objects, which is a great improvement for API clients. My review focuses on making this new implementation more robust and maintainable. I've identified a couple of high-severity issues: one related to potential information loss in the new structured error responses, and another concerning unsafe handling of request bodies which could lead to runtime errors. I've also included a medium-severity suggestion to refactor duplicated code into a middleware to improve maintainability. Addressing these points will make the API more reliable and easier to maintain.