Improve test code and snippets

[gcatanese]

Minor PR to improve test and README snippets

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @gcatanese, 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 focuses on enhancing the codebase's maintainability and clarity by adopting a more fluent and concise object construction approach across various request models. It also strengthens the existing error handling tests to provide more detailed validation.

Highlights

• Code Readability and Conciseness: Refactored numerous object instantiations in both documentation snippets and test files to utilize the builder pattern, significantly improving code readability and reducing verbosity.
• Updated Documentation Snippets: The README.md file's payment request example has been updated to reflect the new builder pattern usage, providing a more modern and concise example for users.
• Enhanced Test Coverage for Error Handling: Improved the ErrorHandlingTest.java by adding specific assertions for ApiError type and message, making error handling tests more robust.

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 in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

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 issue 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 improves code quality by refactoring test cases and README snippets to use a more fluent builder pattern, which enhances readability and conciseness. The changes in the tests are solid improvements. I've added a couple of suggestions to improve consistency in the usage of card detail fields in the README and a test, which will help guide users towards best practices.

[gemini-code-assist]

For consistency with the other encrypted fields like encryptedCardNumber, encryptedExpiryMonth, and encryptedExpiryYear, it would be better to use encryptedSecurityCode instead of cvc. This also promotes a better security practice by avoiding the handling of raw CVC data, which has PCI compliance implications.

Suggested change

	.cvc("737")
	.encryptedSecurityCode("737")

[gemini-code-assist]

For consistency with the other encrypted fields like encryptedCardNumber, encryptedExpiryMonth, and encryptedExpiryYear, consider using encryptedSecurityCode instead of cvc. This would make the test data setup more consistent.

Suggested change

	.cvc("737")
	.encryptedSecurityCode("737")