[oschwald]

Adds the optional was_verification_successful and verification_time inputs to the email request object. Validation accepts a boolean for the result and an RFC 3339 date-time for the time. The changelog bullet is in the same unreleased section as the phone inputs. Move it to a later section if this ships in a later release.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Email requests can now include whether address verification succeeded and when the most recent verification occurred.
• Documentation
  • Updated the example and changelog to describe the new email verification details.
• Validation
  • Verification status must be a boolean, and verification timestamps must use a valid timezone-qualified format.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: ASSERTIVE
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: aebd5030-dfce-4176-84c9-7159188e9e1b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a985539 and 595f707.

📒 Files selected for processing: 5

• HISTORY.rst
• README.rst
• src/minfraud/validation.py
• tests/data/full-transaction-request.json
• tests/test_validation.py

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

The email request schema now accepts verification_time and was_verification_successful. Tests cover their validation, and the request examples and changelog include both fields.

Changes: Email verification fields

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Email schema, examples, and validation src/minfraud/validation.py, tests/test_validation.py, tests/data/full-transaction-request.json, README.rst, HISTORY.rst	The email schema accepts an RFC 3339 verification_time and a boolean was_verification_successful. Tests check valid and invalid values. The request examples and changelog list both fields.

Priority: ➖ Normal

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~8 minutes

Change: Feature

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 595f7

The new optional email verification fields align across validation, examples, tests, and documentation, with no identified merge-blocking risk.

Pre-merge checks: 4 · 1

Failed checks: 1 warning

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage		Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 4 functions across 2 files. (3 skipped: 3 …	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

Passed checks: 4 passed

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check		Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check		The title "Add email verification inputs" matches the main change. The PR adds the optional was_verification_successful and verification_time inputs to the email request object in the validation…
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Title check

Explanation

The title "Add email verification inputs" matches the main change. The PR adds the optional was_verification_successful and verification_time inputs to the email request object in the validation schema, the full-transaction test data, the tests, and the README and HISTORY docs. The title is short, specific, and describes the primary change from the developer's perspective.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 4 functions across 2 files. (3 skipped: 3 unsupported.)

Resolution

Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✨ 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

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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 checks the timestamp’s trail,
With Z or offset, both prevail.
A boolean marks success or no,
The examples show the fields in tow.
Two new details join the email flow.}

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

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.