[dolfim-ibm]

When the server rejects the presigned_url target, the service client falls back to the inbody target. If the server also rejects inbody, the client raised only the inbody error and hid the actionable cause (for example, artifact storage is not enabled). This showed up with docling-mcp in remote mode against a deployment that allows only presigned_url/storage targets: users saw only target kind 'inbody' is not allowed.

The client now keeps both rejections in the error detail, in the sync submit/convert path and in both async fallback paths. Fallback errors other than 400/422 (for example usage-limit errors) are raised unchanged.

Checklist:

• Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Examples have been added, if necessary.
• Tests have been added, if necessary.

Review evidence:

• Before: Task submission failed. (status=422, detail=target kind 'inbody' is not allowed. Allowed values: ['presigned_url', 's3', 'zip'].)
• After: ... target kind 'inbody' is not allowed. ... The client tried the InBody target because the server rejected the presigned_url target: Presigned URL target requires artifact storage to be configured and enabled on the server.
• Reproduced with a stub server that rejects presigned (artifact storage) and inbody (policy).
• New test: test_submit_auto_reports_presigned_rejection_when_inbody_is_also_rejected.
• uv run pytest tests/test_service_client_sdk_unit.py tests/test_service_client_fake_service.py: 205 passed.
• make validate hooks (prek) on the changed files: passed.

[github-actions]

✅ DCO Check Passed

Thanks @dolfim-ibm, all your commits are properly signed off. 🎉

[mergify]

Merge Protections

🟢 Merge protection satisfied — ready to merge.

Show 1 satisfied protection

🟢 Enforce conventional commit

Make sure that we follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

• title ~= ^(fix|feat|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|build|ci|chore|revert)(?:\(.+\))?(!)?:

[github-actions]

AI triage (advisory)

Checked commit bf7d0f8834. The analysis read the diff only. It did not run code from this pull request.

This pull request preserves the initial presigned URL rejection details when the InBody target fallback also fails in the service client. It also adds a unit test for this behavior.

CI safety: no concern found. A maintainer must still approve CI.

_{The ai:* labels are advisory. They do not approve CI and they do not add tests:full. A new push runs this check again.}

[github-actions]

AI first review (advisory): no blocker found

This review covers the full diff at fbf2c39204. It read the code and did not run it.

The change is small and the logic is correct for the main case. One defect remains in the combined message: when the InBody rejection has no string detail, the message starts with the text "None". The reviewer does not need to check anything else for merge.

_{A maintainer makes the merge decision. This review never approves the pull request.}

[github-actions]

suggestion: Combined detail starts with "None" when the InBody error has no detail

ServiceError.detail is str | None. _http_error_detail returns None when the response detail is not a string. FastAPI validation errors use a list for detail. In that case the InBody 400/422 error has detail=None. The f-string then gives None The client tried the InBody target because .... Only use fallback_exc.detail when it is set. Otherwise start the text at "The client tried ...". The ServiceError.__str__ already omits an empty detail. This is a message defect only, so it does not block the merge.

[github-actions]

suggestion: Test covers only the sync path

The PR changes three call sites: the sync _submit_conversion_job_with_auto_target, AsyncDoclingServiceClient.submit, and process_one in submit_and_retrieve_each. The new test covers only the sync path. The two async copies of the same try/except block have no test. A single async test for submit that uses the same fake would catch a later divergence between the copies.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 42.85714% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
docling/service_client/_async_client.py	14.28%	12 Missing ⚠️
docling/service_client/client.py	71.42%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[github-actions]

AI first review (advisory): no blocker found

This review covers the changes since fbf2c39204 at bf7d0f8834. It read the code and did not run it.

The update removes the None prefix when the InBody error detail is empty. The reviewer must check that the async error handling matches the sync error handling.

Earlier findings

• fixed (suggestion): Combined detail starts with "None" when the InBody error has no detail
• open (suggestion): Test covers only the sync path

_{A maintainer makes the merge decision. This review never approves the pull request.}