fix: support all input fields as query params in standby (mainly proxy)

[metalwarrior665]

I tested this locally. I think we could get rid of the Readme section about query params and just send users to https://apify.com/apify/rag-web-browser/input-schema so we don't have duplicate documentation.

[matyascimbulka]

I think it makes sense to support all of the input parameters. There is just a small issue with duplicate code which produces duplicate log messages.

[jirispilka]

Good point about removing query parameters from the README—it will simplify things.

I think we should only provide examples for non-obvious ones, such as outputFormats. Let’s handle this in another PR. I’ve created an issue for it: #62

I believe Matyáš meant removing the checkAndRemoveExtraParams function, as it is no longer needed.

[matyascimbulka]

The issue is fixed, thank you.

[matyascimbulka]

I believe Matyáš meant removing the checkAndRemoveExtraParams function, as it is no longer needed.

At first I did but looking at it closer now I can see that these functions aren't identical. The checkAndRemoveExtraParams function iterates over the defaults object and this change iterates over the inputSchema.properties. And these objects aren't identical (the defaults object has extra properties for validation purposes).

So I guess this begs a bigger question whether we need the defaults object when we can read the input schema directly. What do you think?

[metalwarrior665]

@matyascimbulka Good catch. Fixed to iterate all defaults.

@jirispilka I removed the checkAndRemoveExtraParams but the logic of parsing is now a bit more complex.

This got quite complex for such a small change (that I need for one customer) so before any further updates, I would do a larger refactor to make future updates easier. I would start with looking at the input, we could officially deprecate some fields (e.g. keepAlive seems redundant with Standby) and unify the types with input schema and query params, I think we can just ensure that Standby and input are the same.

[matyascimbulka]

I agree that the larger refactor for the input handling and types around it would be useful. But lets not block this PR for that.

[jirispilka]

Ok, thank you. Yeah, it seems a bit complicated now.