Thanks, @edewit. Failures seem related?

Hello @edewit, Thanks for working on this solution, I appreciate the approach.

I had also opened a PR targeting the same behavior, but with a slightly different direction. In my version, I tried to reuse the existing type, whereas this approach introduces an additional field. Both seem viable, so I'm happy to adapt my changes if we want to converge on a single solution.

As a small type-safety improvement, we could also consider using type?: "resource" | "scope" instead of a plain string.

closed in favor of #45429

@muhammedogz closed this one in favor of your PR, sorry didn't notice yours I think it's fine like you have it. We could make the types nicer, but atm they are generated from the java model classes and in the future they will contain more information