feat(frontier): remove deprecated fields and reserve field ids

[rohilsurana]

Summary

• Remove all deprecated fields from frontier.proto and mark their field numbers as reserved to prevent reuse
• Affects 23 messages across billing, subscription, checkout, invoice, organization, and permission request types

Test plan

• Verify proto compiles successfully
• Verify no existing services break due to removed fields

[github-actions]

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Validate / validate (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
✅ passed	⏩ skipped	✅ passed	✅ passed	Apr 7, 2026, 5:19 AM

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: afc5d2e8-06fd-478e-b03c-7dcdbd113816

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8596342 and 269ccc0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Removed multiple deprecated scope-identifying and other deprecated fields from request message types in raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto (including org_id, billing_id, project_id, plan, immediate, since, and id). The corresponding numeric field positions were declared reserved to prevent reuse. Affected areas include billing account requests, billing usage and transactions, subscriptions and subscription flows, feature entitlement checks, checkouts, and invoices.

Suggested reviewers

• whoAbhishekSah
• rsbh

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'feat(frontier): remove deprecated fields and reserve field ids' accurately captures the main change: removing deprecated fields and marking field numbers as reserved in frontier.proto.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description clearly explains the purpose (removing deprecated fields and reserving field numbers) and scope (23 messages across multiple request types), with a test plan aligned to the changeset.
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]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto (1)

2205-2211: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Mark CheckResourcePermissionRequest.resource as REQUIRED for consistency.

The resource field lacks required validation while permission is marked REQUIRED. Similar patterns elsewhere (e.g., CheckFederatedResourcePermissionRequest.resource in admin.proto) show that required resource identifiers are marked with (google.api.field_behavior) = REQUIRED. Consider adding this annotation:

 message CheckResourcePermissionRequest {
   reserved 1, 2;
   string permission = 3 [
     (google.api.field_behavior) = REQUIRED,
     (buf.validate.field).string.pattern = "^[A-Za-z0-9._-]+$"
   ];
-  string resource = 4;
+  string resource = 4 [(google.api.field_behavior) = REQUIRED];
 }

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

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

In `@raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto` around lines 2205 - 2211, The
CheckResourcePermissionRequest message's resource field is missing the required
annotation; update the frontier.proto definition for
CheckResourcePermissionRequest to add (google.api.field_behavior) = REQUIRED to
the string resource field so it matches permission and other requests like
CheckFederatedResourcePermissionRequest.resource; locate the resource field in
the CheckResourcePermissionRequest message and add the REQUIRED field behavior
annotation to enforce validation.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

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

Outside diff comments:
In `@raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto`:
- Around line 2205-2211: The CheckResourcePermissionRequest message's resource
field is missing the required annotation; update the frontier.proto definition
for CheckResourcePermissionRequest to add (google.api.field_behavior) = REQUIRED
to the string resource field so it matches permission and other requests like
CheckFederatedResourcePermissionRequest.resource; locate the resource field in
the CheckResourcePermissionRequest message and add the REQUIRED field behavior
annotation to enforce validation.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 1f473737-0473-48eb-bef6-a7186968523e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between aed9df8 and 8596342.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• raystack/frontier/v1beta1/frontier.proto