[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Kusto to add version stable/2022-02-01 #17197
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, @docohe 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 |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The operation 'OperationsResultsLocation_Get' returns 202 status code, which indicates a long running operation, please enable 'x-ms-long-running-operation. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3586 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L5936 |
|
The response of operation:'ClusterPrincipalAssignments_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L396 |
|
The response of operation:'ClusterPrincipalAssignments_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L439 |
|
The response of operation:'Databases_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L1146 |
|
The response of operation:'Databases_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L1189 |
|
The response of operation:'Databases_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L1257 |
|
The response of operation:'DatabasePrincipalAssignments_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L1437 |
|
The response of operation:'DatabasePrincipalAssignments_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L1483 |
|
The response of operation:'AttachedDatabaseConfigurations_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L2671 |
|
The response of operation:'AttachedDatabaseConfigurations_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L2714 |
|
The response of operation:'DataConnections_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3102 |
|
The response of operation:'DataConnections_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3151 |
|
The response of operation:'DataConnections_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3222 |
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.Kusto/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3356 |
|
The schema 'ClusterProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3626 |
|
The schema 'TrustedExternalTenant' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3814 |
|
The schema 'AzureResourceSku' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3823 |
|
The schema 'AttachedDatabaseConfigurationProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4124 |
|
The schema 'ReadWriteDatabaseProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4173 |
|
The schema 'ReadOnlyFollowingDatabaseProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4203 |
|
The schema 'EventHubConnectionProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4253 |
|
The schema 'IotHubConnectionProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4320 |
|
The schema 'EventGridConnectionProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4482 |
|
The schema 'Cluster' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4555 |
|
The schema 'ClusterUpdate' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4594 |
|
The schema 'AttachedDatabaseConfigurationListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4633 |
|
The schema 'AttachedDatabaseConfiguration' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4645 |
|
The schema 'Database' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4664 |
|
The schema 'ReadWriteDatabase' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4694 |
|
The schema 'ReadOnlyFollowingDatabase' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L4710 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 2 Errors, 58 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json compared with base:stable/2021-08-27/kusto.json
- current:stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json compared with base:preview/2018-09-07-preview/kusto.json
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Kusto/locations/{location}/operationresults/{operationId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2021-08-27/kusto.json#L3481:5 |
|
The new version has a different default value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2022-02-01/kusto.json#L3761:9 Old: Microsoft.Kusto/stable/2021-08-27/kusto.json#L3660:9 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
|
[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 Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @docohe, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced Jan 2, 2022
|
According to log info, there is unproper definition: |
|
@msyyc The SubscriptionIdParameter is defined in the swagger in line 6102. What am I missing? It was not change in the version. |
|
Hi @docohe, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. |
|
Hi @docohe |
|
That error does seem to be this issue that is quite old and has been fixed Azure/autorest#3546 |
docohe
added
the
DoNotMerge
|
@msyyc did you see @timotheeguerin comment? Is it possible to upgrade the autorest-core version in the tests? |
|
Java is on autorest.core 3.6.6 (and the bug above is fixed in 3.0.6339) Tried autorest.core 3.7.3, same issue |
|
Hi @docohe @timotheeguerin |
|
@msyyc could you please open an issue to the autorest-core? |
|
@docohe @msyyc found the issue. There is a typo in the spec you are using I'll see if I can improve something so autorest can give a better error in cases like that. |
docohe
force-pushed
the
dev-azure-kusto-Microsoft.Kusto-2022-02-01
branch
from
090e6b9
to
f6eaf04
Compare
|
@timotheeguerin could you please refer me to a swagger that has 'x-ms-paths' I cannot see what I'm doing wrong. I've looked in this repo and couldn't find anything. |
|
@docohe what is the current error you are having, |
This was referenced Jan 6, 2022
|
@mentat9 I've address your comments. bool -> enum & camelCasing for operationResults. |
mentat9
added
ARMSignedOff
|
Signed off from ARM perspective. |
weidongxu-microsoft
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2022
docohe
added
DoNotMerge
docohe
removed
the
DoNotMerge
|
@weidongxu-microsoft could you please merge? |
11 tasks
weidongxu-microsoft
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
This was referenced Feb 15, 2022
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 15, 2022
…Kusto to add version stable/2022-02-01 (#2203) Create to sync Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#17197 [ReCreate this PR](https://github.com/azure-resource-manager-schemas/compare/main...AzureSDKAutomation:sdkAuto/azure-kusto?expand=1)
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2022
…ble/2022-02-01 (Azure#17197) * Copy old api-version * 2022-02-01 updated * boolean to enum * operationResult in camelCasing * Add private endpoints member to cluster entity * remove 204 Co-authored-by: dorcohe <cohensdor@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Sagiv Frankel <safranke@microsoft.com>
11 tasks
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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
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.