EntityV3MetadataOwner model misaligned with API expectations and schema registry

[icj217]

Describe the bug
The definition of the EntityV3MetadataOwner model is wrong and leads to erroneous API calls when using this library.

The DD schema repository recently fixed this issue and now correctly reflects what the API expects, but this library does not. I'm guessing someone just needs to re-compile the models?

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Try submitting an API request that uses the EntityV3MetadataOwner model (for example, SoftwareCatalogApi.upsertCatalogEntity())
2. See error response

Expected behavior
Library expects the owner property of the V3EntityMetadata to be a string, not an object.

Screenshots

Environment and Versions (please complete the following information):

v1.29.0 of this library

Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.

[github-actions]

Thanks for your contribution!

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. Note that the issue will not be automatically closed, but this notification will remind us to investigate why there's been inactivity. Thank you for participating in the Datadog open source community.

If you would like this issue to remain open:

1. Verify that you can still reproduce the issue in the latest version of this project.

2. Comment that the issue is still reproducible and include updated details requested in the issue template.

[icj217]

This is still an issue. The model here is incorrect: https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-typescript/blob/master/packages/datadog-api-client-v2/models/EntityV3MetadataOwner.ts

[github-actions]

Thanks for your contribution!

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. Note that the issue will not be automatically closed, but this notification will remind us to investigate why there's been inactivity. Thank you for participating in the Datadog open source community.

If you would like this issue to remain open:

1. Verify that you can still reproduce the issue in the latest version of this project.

2. Comment that the issue is still reproducible and include updated details requested in the issue template.