Migrate the search results warning to the generated model

[gpunto]

Goal

Parse the search results warning with the generated SearchWarning, retiring SearchWarningDto.

Part of AND-1291

Implementation

• Point SearchMessagesResponse.resultsWarning at the generated model and migrate its mapper. Vendors
  SearchWarning, the only model in the closure. Imported under an alias, since the domain type has the
  same name.
• Default channel_search_cids and channel_search_count at the mapper, which is where the shape change
  lands.

Notes

Both scoping fields carry omitempty on the payload struct, and the generated model has them nullable:

ChannelSearchCount int      `json:"channel_search_count,omitempty"`
ChannelSearchCIDs  []string `json:"channel_search_cids,omitempty"`

In practice both are always sent. The backend only builds the warning when the channel query hits its
500-channel limit, so the CID list is full and the count non-zero whenever a warning exists. The domain
keeps its non-null fields, so the mapper defaults to an empty list and zero, which only matters if that
ever changes.

The other two fields, warning_description and warning_code, are plain tags and stay required.

Testing

Mutation sweep over SearchWarning.toDomain: zero survivors, all four fields compile-guaranteed.

Added a mapper test for the case where the optional fields are absent.

Device-probed searchMessages, which returned the probe message and parsed the response with the swapped
field. results_warning itself is not reachable from a probe: the backend only emits it when channel
filters match more than 500 channels, so it came back null as expected, and the populated shape is covered
by the mapper tests instead.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved handling of search warnings returned with message searches.
  • Search results now remain consistent when channel-specific warning details are missing, using an empty channel list and a count of zero.
  • Warning codes and descriptions continue to be displayed correctly.

[github-actions]

PR checklist ✅

All required conditions are satisfied:

• Title length is OK (or ignored by label).
• At least one pr: label exists.
• Sections ### Goal, ### Implementation, and ### Testing are filled, or the PR is bot-authored.
• An issue is linked (Linear ticket or GitHub issue), or the PR is bot-authored.

🎉 Great job! This PR is ready for review.

[github-actions]

SDK Size Comparison 📏

SDK	Before	After	Difference	Status
stream-chat-android-client	6.08 MB	6.08 MB	0.00 MB	🟢
stream-chat-android-ui-components	11.39 MB	11.39 MB	0.00 MB	🟢
stream-chat-android-compose	13.06 MB	13.06 MB	0.00 MB	🟢

[coderabbitai]

Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius.

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 208c206c-18a0-4f4f-9e66-f437001eb2ef

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e0cf35b and 58e4d85.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)

• stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/mapping/DomainMapping.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/model/dto/SearchWarningDto.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/model/response/SearchMessagesResponse.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/network/models/SearchWarning.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/test/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/Mother.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/test/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/MoshiChatApiTestArguments.kt
• stream-chat-android-client/src/test/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/mapping/DomainMappingTest.kt

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/model/dto/SearchWarningDto.kt

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 4 included reviews per hour; 2 remain after this review.

---

Walkthrough

Changes

Search warning model migration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Warning model and response wiring stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/network/models/SearchWarning.kt, stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/model/response/SearchMessagesResponse.kt, stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/model/dto/SearchWarningDto.kt	Added the network SearchWarning model, changed SearchMessagesResponse.resultsWarning to use it, and removed SearchWarningDto.
Mapping defaults and test fixtures stream-chat-android-client/src/main/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/mapping/DomainMapping.kt, stream-chat-android-client/src/test/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/Mother.kt, stream-chat-android-client/src/test/java/io/getstream/chat/android/client/api2/*	Updated mapping and fixtures to use camelCase response fields. Missing channel IDs map to an empty list, and missing counts map to 0. Tests cover both populated and absent channel search fields.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~15 minutes

Change: Bug fix

Suggested reviewers: velikovpetar

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 58e4d

The search warning model migration preserves warning data and safely defaults omitted channel-scoping fields, with focused mapper coverage. The change is ready to merge.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 22.22% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 9 functions across 6 files.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: migrating search result warnings to the generated model.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes the goal, implementation details, testing results, issue reference, mapping behavior, and rationale for nullable fields. It omits the UI, contributor checklist, reviewer check…

• Fix all pre-merge checks with AI

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

📝 Generate docstrings 💡

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{A rabbit hops through models bright
New warning fields align just right
Empty paths become lists anew
Counts settle softly into two
Tests tap their paws: the mapping’s true}

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

[andremion]

Looks good. One small nit inline.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[stream-public-bot]

🚀 Available in v7.12.0