Adding 2021-11-01 version for Microsoft.AzureArcData #16275
Merged
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
|
Hi, @sureleo 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 Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DataControllers' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L733 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DataControllers' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L796 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DataControllers' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L844 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DataControllers' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L888 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'DataControllers_PutDataController' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L733 |
|
| 'PATCH' operation 'DataControllers_PatchDataController' should use method name 'Update'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L888 |
|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: name Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L975 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'OnPremiseProperty' for property 'id'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1447 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'LogAnalyticsWorkspaceConfig' for property 'workspaceId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1946 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'UploadServicePrincipal' for property 'clientId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1966 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: dev Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L948 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: dev Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L995 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1118 |
|
| The tracked resource, 'DataControllerResource', must have a list by resource group operation.(This rule does not apply for tenant level resources.) Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1249 |
|
| The tracked resource, 'DataControllerResource', must have a list by subscriptions operation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1249 |
|
| 'dataControllerName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L751 |
|
| 'dataControllerName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L805 |
|
| 'dataControllerName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L853 |
|
| 'dataControllerName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L897 |
|
| 'Resource' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1166 |
|
| 'PageOfDataControllerResource' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1234 |
|
| 'ResourceSku' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1332 |
|
| 'family' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1004 |
|
| 'capacity' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1007 |
|
| 'value' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1237 |
|
| 'capacity' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1335 |
|
| 'family' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1339 |
|
| 'name' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1342 |
|
| 'size' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1345 |
|
| 'tier' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L1348 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️⚠️Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 7 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.0)
- current:stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json compared with base:stable/2021-08-01/azurearcdata.json
- current:stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json compared with base:preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.AzureArcData/postgresInstances' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L647:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.AzureArcData/postgresInstances' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L686:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.AzureArcData/postgresInstances/{postgresInstanceName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L729:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'PostgresInstanceSku' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L939:3 Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L1235:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'PostgresInstanceProperties' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L939:3 Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L1235:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'PostgresInstance' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L939:3 Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L1235:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'PostgresInstanceUpdate' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.AzureArcData/stable/2021-11-01/azurearcdata.json#L939:3 Old: Microsoft.AzureArcData/preview/2021-07-01-preview/azurearcdata.json#L1235:3 |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️[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 @sureleo, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced Oct 4, 2021
Closed
|
Hi, @sureleo your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
sureleo
removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
WaitForARMFeedback
sureleo
changed the title
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
sureleo
requested review from
00Kai0,
ArcturusZhang,
jsntcy,
msyyc and
RAY-316
as code owners
| "200": { | ||
| "description": "Successfully retrieved operations.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/OperationListResult" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably better for API reviewability and consistency to reference OperationListResult from https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These suggestions aren't really core to your change, you could do them in a separate 'refactoring' PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Refactoring swagger is in our backlog.
| "type": "object", | ||
| "allOf": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/TrackedResource" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can be a reference to TrackedResource in https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Will do it together with the refactor PR.
| "name" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "Identity": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can avoid duplicating 'Identity' from https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do it in a separate PR. Azure Devops work item created to make sure we'll do it.
| "summary": "List sqlManagedInstance resources in the subscription", | ||
| "parameters": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/parameters/subscriptionId" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be able to use a ref to SubscriptionIdParameter in common-types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do it in a separate PR. Azure Devops work item created to make sure we'll do it.
| "$ref": "#/parameters/subscriptionId" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/parameters/apiVersion" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be able to use a ref to ApiVersionParameter in common-types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do it in a separate PR. Azure Devops work item created to make sure we'll do it.
| "default": { | ||
| "description": "*** Error Responses: ***\n\n * 400 InvalidParameterValue - An invalid value was given to parameter.\n\n * 400 InvalidCrossSubscriptionVmMove - Invalid cross subscription move of resource.\n\n * 404 ResourceNotFound - The requested resource was not found.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/ErrorResponse" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ErrorResponse is defined in comnon-types also
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do it in a separate PR. Azure Devops work item created to make sure we'll do it.
|
@sureleo So it can be easily reviewable for api-changes by ARM reviewer(s), you must submit PRs for new api-versions using a commit format that aids reviewing: first start the PR with one commit which just adds the new api-version as an exact copy of the old version, then make all the changes to the new api-version as separate commits. |
TimLovellSmith
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
TimLovellSmith
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
Am I missing anything here? |
|
@sureleo Thanks for clarifying, as it wasn't immediately clear from the commit messages - so this is the only actual api change, and its not just a change to examples, correct? |
TimLovellSmith
added
WaitForARMFeedback
Correct. This is an API version bump to add two more parameters, and marks two fields as deprecated. I'll make the commit message more explicitly next time. I did check but it seems there is something wrong with the mark down template itself so the checkbox wasn't displayed correctly. |
|
@TimLovellSmith thanks for the review! |
leni-msft
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2021
This was referenced Oct 7, 2021
Closed
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2021
jovannikolov-msft
pushed a commit
to jovannikolov-msft/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2021
* Adding API Version 2021-11-01 * Updating example and naming * Remove password * Update field description
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
* Adding API Version 2021-11-01 * Updating example and naming * Remove password * Update field description
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:
We are targeting releasing this API version on Ignite this year, which is end of October and early November timeframe.
Swagger will be published this month.
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.
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.