fix: Reponse with correct content-type

[Shouren]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
An incorrect Content-Type header can result in errors during response body parsing

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

[hami-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Shouren

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Shouren]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Shouren, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a bug where error responses from the scheduler's predicate and bind routes were not consistently formatted as JSON, despite the Content-Type header indicating application/json. The changes ensure that all error scenarios now return a properly structured JSON object, improving client-side error handling and parsing by providing a consistent and predictable error payload.

Highlights

• Consistent JSON Error Responses in PredicateRoute: Modified the PredicateRoute function to ensure that all error conditions, including context cancellation and JSON marshaling failures, consistently return a structured extenderFilterResult object in JSON format, rather than plain text error messages.
• Consistent JSON Error Responses in Bind: Updated the Bind function to ensure that errors encountered during JSON marshaling of the binding result are also returned as a structured extenderBindingResult object in JSON format, providing a parsable error response.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes an issue where HTTP error responses were being sent with a Content-Type: application/json header but with a non-JSON body. The changes correctly ensure that the response body is a valid JSON object in error cases by marshalling an error struct. My feedback includes suggestions to handle potential errors during the creation of these fallback error responses to make the error handling more robust.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/scheduler/routes/route.go	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	51.14% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pkg/scheduler/routes/route.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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