Background
PR #11125 added a model (named model value) scenario for query parameter expansion, but only under query-expansion/explode:
Routes_QueryParameters_QueryExpansion_Explode_model — GET /routes/query/query-expansion/explode/model?field=status&value=active
This covers the gap behind #11123 / #10973, where a named model flows through a different emitter type-handling path than a Record<T>.
Request
For parity with the existing primitive / array / record cases, add the same named-model scenario to the other expansion styles that currently lack it:
query-expansion/standard ({?param})
query-continuation/standard (?fixed=true{¶m})
query-continuation/explode (?fixed=true{¶m*})
Each should use a named model value (e.g. ExpandParameters { field: string; value: string; }) and add a matching mock API plus regenerated spec-summary.md.
Follow-up requested in PR #11125 review.
Background
PR #11125 added a
model(named model value) scenario for query parameter expansion, but only underquery-expansion/explode:Routes_QueryParameters_QueryExpansion_Explode_model—GET /routes/query/query-expansion/explode/model?field=status&value=activeThis covers the gap behind #11123 / #10973, where a named
modelflows through a different emitter type-handling path than aRecord<T>.Request
For parity with the existing
primitive/array/recordcases, add the same named-model scenario to the other expansion styles that currently lack it:query-expansion/standard({?param})query-continuation/standard(?fixed=true{¶m})query-continuation/explode(?fixed=true{¶m*})Each should use a named model value (e.g.
ExpandParameters { field: string; value: string; }) and add a matching mock API plus regeneratedspec-summary.md.Follow-up requested in PR #11125 review.