fix(cli): validate UModel YAML files

[Chloride233]

Summary

This closes a small gap in the local authoring loop: the CLI docs point umctl umodel validate at a quickstart UModel YAML file, but the command only wrapped JSON before calling the validate API.

Now umctl umodel validate can accept one schema-style UModel YAML file and send the same elements payload the API already expects.

Scope

• Reuses the UModel payload normalizer from import parsing.
• Keeps umodel put JSON-only.
• No REST API, MCP, SDK, schema, or Web UI changes.

Verification details

• Affected version: main; no released tag was used for this reproduction.
• Steps to reproduce before this change:
  1. Start UnifiedModel and create a workspace such as demo.
  2. Run go run ./cmd/umctl --addr http://localhost:8080 umodel validate demo examples/quickstart-multidomain/umodel/devops/entity_set/devops.service.yaml.
• Expected behavior: The CLI accepts the documented schema-style YAML file, normalizes its kind, schema, metadata, and spec fields, and sends one element to /api/v1/umodel/demo/validate.
• Actual behavior before this change: The validate command treated the file input as JSON-only and attempted to wrap the raw YAML as JSON, so it exited before sending a normalized elements payload.
• Logs/stack trace: No runtime stack trace is involved. The regression is reproduced by TestUModelValidateAcceptsSchemaStyleYAMLFile, which fails without this change and verifies the normalized request payload with it.

Tests

• go test ./cmd/umctl/cmd -run 'TestUModelValidateAcceptsSchemaStyleYAMLFile|TestCLICommandsRouteToCorrectEndpoints' -count=1
• go test ./internal/umodel/payload -count=1
• go test ./internal/bootstrap ./internal/sampledata -run 'QuickStart|quickstart|Sample|Localization' -count=1
• git diff --check

[qiansheng91]

Summary

Reviewed PR #94: fix(cli): validate UModel YAML files

The changes appear reasonable. No critical issues found in the diff.

---

Automated review by github-manager-bot

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Needs Verification

Thank you for reporting this issue. The reported behavior is being reviewed against the current codebase.

Next Steps:

• This issue has been flagged for code-level verification
• If confirmed, an automated fix proposal may be generated
• You can reply with additional context, reproduction steps, or logs to help speed up the analysis

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager-bot

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Under Review

Thank you for reporting this issue. It has been classified as a potential bug and is being reviewed against the current codebase.

A deeper verification will be performed. If confirmed as a valid bug, an automated fix proposal may be generated.

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Needs Info

Thank you for reporting this issue. To proceed with verification, please provide:

• Version/tag where this occurs
• Steps to reproduce
• Expected vs actual behavior
• Relevant logs or stack traces

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager-bot

[Chloride233]

Added the requested version, reproduction steps, expected vs. actual behavior, and verification evidence to the PR description. This is a non-crashing CLI input-handling gap on main; the regression test documents the failure mode and normalized request payload.

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Needs Verification

Thank you @ for reporting this. This issue has been flagged as a potential bug.

Next Steps:

• This issue will be verified against the current codebase by the automated pipeline.
• If confirmed, a fix proposal (spec + PR) will be generated automatically.
• If more information is needed, a follow-up comment will request details.

Please ensure your report includes:

• Steps to reproduce
• Expected vs actual behavior
• Version/tag where this occurs
• Relevant logs or error messages

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager-bot

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Under Review

Thank you for reporting this issue. It has been classified as a potential bug and is being reviewed against the current codebase.

If confirmed as a valid bug, an automated fix proposal may be generated. Community members can reply /approve to proceed with PR generation, /revise to request changes to the approach, or /reject to decline.

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager

[qiansheng91]

Issue Evaluation

Category: bug | Status: Under Review

Thank you for reporting this. The issue has been classified as a potential bug and is queued for code-level verification.

Next steps:

• Code-level analysis will verify the root cause
• If confirmed, a fix spec and PR will be generated automatically
• Reply /approve to accelerate PR generation once the spec is ready

---

Automated evaluation by github-manager-bot