fix: Send request queue write fields under the names the API declares

[vdusek]

add_request and batch_add_requests sent request fields snake_cased. The API declares its write bodies with additionalProperties: false, so it rejected the whole write with HTTP 400 — a request carrying user_data, no_retry, retry_count, loaded_url, error_messages, or handled_at could not be added at all. The identical dict passed to update_request worked:

add_request     -> 400  {"uniqueKey": "k", "url": "...", "user_data": {...}, "no_retry": true}
update_request  -> 200  {"uniqueKey": "k", "url": "...", "userData":  {...}, "noRetry":  true}

RequestDraft declared only id/unique_key/url/method and left the rest to extra='allow', which alias_generator=to_camel never touches. The spec uses it only for unprocessedRequests in responses and declares both add-request bodies as RequestBase — the client was using a response schema as its input model. The codegen postprocessor now reparents RequestDraft onto RequestBase. Both upstream spec fixes (#952, apify-docs#2774) are closed.

Three things to know:

• Validation narrows. The newly declared fields are validated instead of passed through, so retry_count='abc' or a naive handled_at now raise ValidationError instead of a 400 from the API.
• update_request's timestamp format changes (fa77d88): mode='json' emits ISO 8601 where python mode emitted 2019-06-16 10:23:31.607000+00:00. The API accepts both, so this is spec fidelity, not a fix — its own commit, revertible alone.
• RequestDraftDict loses the static Required marker on unique_key/url — PEP 589 forbids redeclaring a base's key. Pydantic still enforces both at runtime.

Integration tests round-trip every field through both add paths against the live API; they fail on master with InvalidRequestError.

✍️ Drafted by Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.17%. Comparing base (df80da1) to head (ada2306).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1026      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.95%   98.17%   +3.21%     
==========================================
  Files          58       58              
  Lines        5436     5426      -10     
==========================================
+ Hits         5162     5327     +165     
+ Misses        274       99     -175     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	91.92% <33.33%> (+0.20%)	⬆️
unit	89.64% <100.00%> (+3.82%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.