refactor: rename last_used_at to used_at in PAT definition.

[AmanGIT07]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Validate / validate (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
✅ passed	⏩ skipped	✅ passed	✅ passed	Apr 16, 2026, 8:22 AM

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 741a44e8-25b7-48e9-a67b-cffd40a1b2d5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5ba7d51 and b9075aa.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• raystack/frontier/v1beta1/admin.proto
• raystack/frontier/v1beta1/models.proto

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Two protobuf message definitions have been updated with field name changes. In raystack/frontier/v1beta1/admin.proto, the SearchOrganizationPATsResponse.OrganizationPAT message had its timestamp field renamed from last_used_at to used_at at tag 7. Similarly, in raystack/frontier/v1beta1/models.proto, the PAT message's output-only timestamp field was renamed from last_used_at to used_at at tag 11. Both fields retain their original type (google.protobuf.Timestamp) and field numbers.

Suggested reviewers

• whoAbhishekSah
• rohilsurana

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	No pull request description was provided by the author, making it impossible to assess whether any description exists or is related to the changeset.	Consider adding a brief description explaining the rationale for renaming the field (e.g., semantic clarification, API consistency, or naming convention alignment).

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and accurately describes the main change: renaming the last_used_at field to used_at in the PAT definition across both proto files.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}