Fix typo in parameters of WriteToKafka in Python doc

[yuwtennis]

fixes #36931

Modify the terms used in params of WriteToKafka to right context.

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @yuwtennis, 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 addresses a minor but important documentation typo within the WriteToKafka transform. It updates the parameter descriptions to correctly refer to 'serializers' instead of 'deserializers' for the key and value arguments, ensuring that the documentation accurately reflects the function's behavior when writing data to Kafka. This change improves clarity and prevents potential confusion for users.

Highlights

• Documentation Fix: The parameter names key_deserializer and value_deserializer in the WriteToKafka transform's __init__ method docstring have been corrected to key_serializer and value_serializer respectively, to accurately reflect their role in serializing data for Kafka.

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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 36.33%. Comparing base (c72970d) to head (0ca4bb0).
⚠️ Report is 19 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master   #36932   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     36.33%   36.33%           
  Complexity     1667     1667           
=========================================
  Files          1063     1063           
  Lines        166703   166709    +6     
  Branches       1199     1199           
=========================================
+ Hits          60576    60579    +3     
- Misses       103951   103954    +3     
  Partials       2176     2176           

Flag	Coverage Δ
python	40.65% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

[yuwtennis]

assign set of reviewers

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers:

R: @tvalentyn for label python.

Note: If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[yuwtennis]

I have created a separate issued about the failing action . PreCommit Python ML tests with ML deps installed

#36936

[Abacn]

missed this one. Identical fix merged in #36934. Thanks!