remove invalid example for GET show netem property containerName

[mxyns]

here is the output of the openapi-generator-cli with the current swagger.json:

2026-02-10 15:51:43 (4.06 MB/s) - ‘/tmp/openapi-generator-cli.jar’ saved [31060598/31060598]

Exception in thread "main" org.openapitools.codegen.SpecValidationException: There were issues with the specification. The option can be disabled via validateSpec (Maven/Gradle) or --skip-validate-spec (CLI).
 | Error count: 1, Warning count: 0
Errors: 
        -attribute paths.'/api/v1/tools/netem/show'(get).[containerName].example is unexpected

        at org.openapitools.codegen.config.CodegenConfigurator.toContext(CodegenConfigurator.java:718)
        at org.openapitools.codegen.config.CodegenConfigurator.toClientOptInput(CodegenConfigurator.java:745)
        at org.openapitools.codegen.cmd.Generate.execute(Generate.java:527)
        at org.openapitools.codegen.cmd.OpenApiGeneratorCommand.run(OpenApiGeneratorCommand.java:32)
        at org.openapitools.codegen.OpenAPIGenerator.main(OpenAPIGenerator.java:66)

this PR addresses the issue by removing the invalid example from the swagger

[mxyns]

a CI with automatic validation of the swagger with the official openapi tool could be nice 🙂

[FloSch62]

@mxyns

The swagger files are auto generated by task wag

Looking at internal/api/tools_handlers.go:750, the swag annotation is:
// @param containerName query string true "Container/node name" example(clab-my-lab-srl1)

This is where the example value comes from. The PR is removing the example from the generated output files, but the annotation in the source code still has it. So the next time someone runs swag init, the example will come right back.

[mxyns]

ah didn't know that, my bad. thanks for the heads up i'll fix it. that means that my previous PR which has been merged was bad as well and was overwritten: #61

[FloSch62]

ah didn't know that, my bad. thanks for the heads up i'll fix it. that means that my previous PR which has been merged was bad as well and was overwritten: #61

yes sorry about #61, thats my fault, I overlooked the change