api management events schema #15987
Merged
api management events schema #15987
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
catch up with upsteam on 02242021
|
Hi, @KacieKK Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips. Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com |
|
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
1 similar comment
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
1 similar comment
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Property named: 'Id', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'id'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L14 |
|
Property named: 'VaultName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'vaultName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L18 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectType', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectType'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L22 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L26 |
|
Property named: 'Version', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'version'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L30 |
|
Property named: 'NBF', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'nbf'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L34 |
|
Property named: 'EXP', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'exp'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L38 |
|
Property named: 'Id', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'id'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L48 |
|
Property named: 'VaultName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'vaultName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L52 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectType', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectType'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L56 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L60 |
|
Property named: 'Version', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'version'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L64 |
|
Property named: 'NBF', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'nbf'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L68 |
|
Property named: 'EXP', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'exp'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L72 |
|
Property named: 'Id', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'id'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L82 |
|
Property named: 'VaultName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'vaultName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L86 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectType', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectType'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L90 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectName', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L94 |
|
Property named: 'Version', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'version'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L98 |
|
Property named: 'NBF', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'nbf'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L102 |
|
Property named: 'EXP', for definition: 'KeyVaultCertificateExpiredEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'exp'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L106 |
|
Property named: 'Id', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'id'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L116 |
|
Property named: 'VaultName', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'vaultName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L120 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectType', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectType'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L124 |
|
Property named: 'ObjectName', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'objectName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L128 |
|
Property named: 'Version', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'version'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L132 |
|
Property named: 'NBF', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'nbf'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L136 |
|
Property named: 'EXP', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNewVersionCreatedEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'exp'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L140 |
|
Property named: 'Id', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'id'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L150 |
|
Property named: 'VaultName', for definition: 'KeyVaultKeyNearExpiryEventData' must follow camelCase style. Example: 'vaultName'. Location: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2018-01-01/KeyVault.json#L154 |
️❌Avocado: 15 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"readme":"eventgrid/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-2018-01", "details":"Error: Semantic validation failed. There was some errors" |
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @KacieKK, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
ellismg
requested changes
Sep 13, 2021
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "APIUpdatedEventData": { | ||
| "description": "Schema of the Data property of an EventGridEvent for a Microsoft.ApiManagement.APIUpdated event.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noticed that for some events API is capitalized, and in other cases, it's spell Api (e.g. APIUpdated vs ApiReleaseUpdated) I just want to confirm that the difference in casing between these event is expected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, curious about this - We would likely need to rename this via swagger transforms in .NET. It also seems odd that we have API (in whatever casing) twice in the name of the events.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that makes sense but the casing should be consistent, right?
We will have to transform it anyway to use "Api" everywhere if we leave it as "API" in the swagger.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ApiManagement is the name of our service that hosts "API" entities. API is an abbreviation so we normally spell it with all caps.
Renaming "ApiManagementAPI" to "ApiManagementApi" requires an extra rollout train to all our services. We prefer to stay as it is.
specification/eventgrid/data-plane/Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2018-01-01/APIManagement.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
/azp run |
|
Commenter does not have sufficient privileges for PR 15987 in repo Azure/azure-rest-api-specs |
...tion/eventgrid/data-plane/Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2018-01-01/examples/apiUpdated.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
So for ApiManagementAPIUpdatedEventData, is it intentional that we have both "Api" and "API" in the name? I'm curious what the second API is meant to indicate. |
I see. Is there a reason the casing is different? I'd expect it to be "Api" in both places. |
lmazuel
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2021
ellismg
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2021
ApiManagement is the name of our service that hosts "API" entities. API is an abbreviation so we normally spell it with all caps. |
Aren't there already other changes from this PR that will require another rollout? |
Actually, it looks like the casing has already been updated to "Api" everywhere. |
JoshLove-msft
approved these changes
Sep 21, 2021
|
@JoshLove-msft yes, I already changed it to pascal. are we good to merge? |
Looks like it. @lmazuel can you merge this? |
This was referenced Sep 23, 2021
Closed
Hardell
pushed a commit
to Hardell/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2021
* add swagger * align * rephrase * resolvemergeconflict * comments * examples * prettier * comments * pascal Co-authored-by: Kacie Kang <jikang@microsoft.com>
| "data": { | ||
| "resourceUri": "/subscriptions/subscription-id}/resourceGroups/{your-rg}/providers/Microsoft.ApiManagement/service/{your-APIM-instance}/apis/{apiId}/releases/{releaseId}" | ||
| }, | ||
| "eventType": "Microsoft.ApiManagement.APIReleaseDeleted", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just want to check - are the event types still using "API" or were they also updated to "Api" to match the event names?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My mistake - I see that the event names were updated, but the event descriptions were left in the API casing. Please disregard my question.
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
* add swagger * align * rephrase * resolvemergeconflict * comments * examples * prettier * comments * pascal Co-authored-by: Kacie Kang <jikang@microsoft.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits.
Ensure you've reviewed following guidelines including ARM resource provider contract and REST guidelines. Estimated time (4 hours). This is required before you can request review from ARM API Review board.
If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged with urgency, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
Breaking Change Review Checklist
If any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.