chore: librarian version update

[quirogas]

This PR applies the output of librarian generate --all following the upgrade to Librarian v0.27.1 and gapic-tools 1.1.0.

Although the overall diff spans 254 files and ~16.5M deleted lines, there are no functional code changes.

Summary of Changes

• Protobuf JSDoc Comment Stripping (packages/*/protos/protos.js)
  • What changed: Removed JSDoc comment blocks from generated static protobuf definitions across 233+ packages.
  • Why: Enables --no-comments in gapic-tools 1.1.0 to fix nodejs: generation diff as of July 6th librarian#6638 nodejs: generation diff as of July 6th librarian#6638. This reduces file sizes below GitHub's 50MB warning and 100MB rejection thresholds (e.g., google-cloud-
    compute/protos/protos.js drops from 102MB to 29MB).
  • Impact: No runtime or typing changes. Protobuf encoders, decoders, and message classes remain identical.
• Prettier Formatting (~15 files)
  - What changed: Minor whitespace and formatting adjustments in generated client/test files (productregistry, workflows, developer-knowledge).
  - Why: Standard output from Prettier formatting during generator post-processing.
  - Impact: Formatting only.
• Metadata Synchronization (3 files)
  - What changed: Synchronized .repo-metadata.json files (e.g., scoped package name update for @google/developer-knowledge).
  - Why: Upstream API metadata alignment from googleapis.
  - Impact: Metadata only.

For googleapis/librarian#6638

[gemini-code-assist]

Warning

Gemini encountered an error creating the review. You can try again by commenting /gemini review.

[feywind]

In packages/google-developer-knowledge/.repo-metadata.json, it flipped from stable to preview. Is that on purpose?

[quirogas]

In packages/google-developer-knowledge/.repo-metadata.json, it flipped from stable to preview. Is that on purpose?

Yes! The package was onboarded last week and is currently on version 0.1.0, so it should be labeled as a preview. While this is a standard preventative measure for new packages, it wasn't applied correctly during initial generation because the package was created using an outdated template.

[quirogas]

The CI failure appears to be associated with Windows pathing. I have filed a bug report at #8907, detailing my findings and proposing a potential solution.

[pearigee]

I think the only thing that is needed is adding the license in the minified file.