Refactor suffix/label handling and add SupportEntityScreen model

[OCopping]

Changes

generate.py — Suffix and label improvements

• suffix_key now falls back to None instead of component_name, preventing creation of bogus macro keys
• Label fallback from screen_macros now prefers explicit "label" or "suffix" keys over dict order
• Switched screen_mapping["key"] → screen_mapping.key for the new model type

models.py — New SupportEntityScreen BaseModel

• Added SupportEntityScreen(file, type, screen_macros) replacing list[dict[...]] with proper typed fields
• Added json_schema_extra on screen_macros for YAML editor validation

Tests — Updated fixtures and attribute access to match the new model type.

Benefits

• Missing file or type in a screen entry is a clear Pydantic error instead of a KeyError
• IDEs can validate screen_macros key-value pairs at edit time
• No more silent creation of invalid macro keys

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.23%. Comparing base (2dd3dc6) to head (836efc5).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/techui_builder/generate.py	91.30%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #274      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.55%   96.23%   -0.33%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines        1075     1088      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits         1038     1047       +9     
- Misses         37       41       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[OCopping]

Built against the newest techui-support, it works and I am now getting this for i19's QBPM screen:

[adedamola-sode]

I don't know if we want to optimise for coverage or not, if not, we should probably remove it completely, otherwise that would need resolution. Looks great, thanks!

[OCopping]

I don't know if we want to optimise for coverage or not, if not, we should probably remove it completely, otherwise that would need resolution. Looks great, thanks!

I think as long as the coverage is above 95% it doesn't really matter too much, but we should try and at least make the patch coverage be green in future. It's just annoying when the cause is odd lines.