Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update blob auditing spec from swagger generator #1251

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 25, 2017

Conversation

jaredmoo
Copy link
Member

@jaredmoo jaredmoo commented May 23, 2017

Used SQL swagger generator to regenerate the blob auditing spec. The path is represented in a different way (blob auditing policy parameter with single enum value, instead of hardcoded in path) but otherwise there should be no functional difference.


This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

@jaredmoo
Copy link
Member Author

@yaakoviyun , @ayeletshpigelman , @nathannfan FYI

"enum": [
"Enabled",
"Disabled"
],
"x-ms-enum":{
"type": "string",
"x-ms-enum": {
"name": "BlobAuditingPolicyState"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not a big deal, but are you on the latest? Generator should be adding "modelAsString": "false" here

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, this is from yesterday :) I'll fix it

@jaredmoo
Copy link
Member Author

Validations to fix:

  1. SecurityDefinitionsStructureValidation
  2. All the examples validations

The rest are noise

@balajikris
Copy link
Member

Thanks @jaredmoo . I'll take a look.

@jaredmoo
Copy link
Member Author

All the remaining warnings are noise. Ready to review now.

@balajikris
Copy link
Member

Hey @jaredmoo -

Regarding this error:

{
  "type": "Error",
  "code": "OperationsAPIImplementationValidation",
  "message": "Operations API must be implemented for '/providers//operations'.",
  "id": "M3023",
  "validationCategory": "RPCViolation",
  "providerNamespace": null,
  "resourceType": null,
  "sources": [
    "file:///e:/repos/azure-rest-api-specs/arm-sql/compositeSql.json:1:0 ($)"
  ]
}

are you saying this is a red-herring or it doesn't apply to your case or you don't want to fix it now ?

@jaredmoo
Copy link
Member Author

Operations for sql is implemented in a different file - https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/arm-sql/2014-04-01/swagger/operations.json

@jaredmoo
Copy link
Member Author

So... red herring I guess? :) We have a 2015-05-01-preview version of /operations coming online very soon, and we plan to consolidate all 2015-01-01-preview version apis including operations into a single swagger file which will fix this warning.

@balajikris
Copy link
Member

Thanks @jaredmoo . Starting an internal thread to investigate this potential false error. I'm okay with the changes, will sign-off.

@balajikris balajikris merged commit 1b3e5d2 into Azure:master May 25, 2017
@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for NodeJS

@AutorestCI
Copy link

@AutorestCI
Copy link

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants