[docs] improve OpenAPI doc tags

[capcom6]

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved SIM number validation to ensure required values when provided.
  • Enhanced date-time field formatting in API responses for consistency.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
smsgateway/domain_messages.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Two validation and metadata updates: SimNumber field in Message now requires minimum 1 character when present (previously just maximum 3 characters), and TokenResponse.ExpiresAt field tag gains date-time format specification for serialization metadata.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Message Validation smsgateway/domain_messages.go	SimNumber field validation constraint updated to enforce minimum length of 1 character in addition to existing maximum of 3 characters.
DTO Metadata smsgateway/dto_auth.go	TokenResponse.ExpiresAt field tag augmented with format:"date-time" specifier for serialization metadata.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The pull request title '[docs] improve OpenAPI doc tags' accurately reflects the changes made, which involve updating validation tags (SimNumber) and format specifiers (TokenResponse.ExpiresAt) that are used for OpenAPI documentation generation.
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.}

---

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

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

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

smsgateway/domain_messages.go (1)

84-84: min=1 is a runtime behavioral change: callers sending simNumber: 0 will now receive validation errors

The addition of min=1 to SimNumber's validate tag is semantically correct and will trigger validation failures at runtime when a non-nil *uint8 pointing to 0 is passed. This is a minor breaking change for callers who previously sent simNumber: 0.

Since this field is a pointer, omitnil expresses the intent more precisely than omitempty. Both skip validation when the pointer is nil, but omitnil is explicit and clearer to future readers that nil pointers are intentionally skipped (whereas omitempty is more ambiguous for pointer semantics).

♻️ Optional: use omitnil for pointer field clarity

-	SimNumber *uint8 `json:"simNumber,omitempty" validate:"omitempty,min=1,max=3" example:"1"`
+	SimNumber *uint8 `json:"simNumber,omitempty" validate:"omitnil,min=1,max=3"  example:"1"`

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

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

In `@smsgateway/domain_messages.go` at line 84, The validate tag for SimNumber
currently uses `omitempty` which is ambiguous for a pointer and can cause
unintended validation when a non-nil *uint8 equals 0; update the struct tag on
SimNumber to use `omitnil` instead of `omitempty` (keeping the `min=1,max=3`
constraint) so nil pointers are explicitly skipped during validation and callers
sending nil continue to pass validation while non-nil values are validated
against min/max; locate the SimNumber field in domain_messages.go (symbol:
SimNumber *uint8) and replace `omitempty` with `omitnil` in its validate tag.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

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

Nitpick comments:
In `@smsgateway/domain_messages.go`:
- Line 84: The validate tag for SimNumber currently uses `omitempty` which is
ambiguous for a pointer and can cause unintended validation when a non-nil
*uint8 equals 0; update the struct tag on SimNumber to use `omitnil` instead of
`omitempty` (keeping the `min=1,max=3` constraint) so nil pointers are
explicitly skipped during validation and callers sending nil continue to pass
validation while non-nil values are validated against min/max; locate the
SimNumber field in domain_messages.go (symbol: SimNumber *uint8) and replace
`omitempty` with `omitnil` in its validate tag.