[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.CostManagement to add version stable/2021-10-01 #17354
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, @mitagarg 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 new version has a new read-only property 'description' in response that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L2180:11 Old: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L2175:11 |
|
The new version has a new read-only property 'id' in response that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L2166:7 Old: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L2166:7 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Since operation 'Exports_GetExecutionHistory' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.exports.json#L342 |
|
| Since operation 'Dimensions_ByExternalCloudProviderType' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L876 |
|
| 'GET' operation 'Dimensions_ByExternalCloudProviderType' should use method name 'Get' or Method name start with 'List'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L876 |
|
| 'PATCH' operation 'Alerts_Dismiss' 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.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L487 |
|
| The operation 'GenerateDetailedCostReportOperationResults_Get' returns 202 status code, which indicates a long running operation, please enable 'x-ms-long-running-operation. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.generatedetailedcostreport.json#L123 |
|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: direction Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L1305 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Exports_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.exports.json#L37 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Exports_GetExecutionHistory' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.exports.json#L338 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Alerts_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L383 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Alerts_ListExternal' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L537 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'run' in:'Exports_Execute'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.exports.json#L288 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'generatedetailedcostreport' in:'GenerateDetailedCostReport_CreateOperation'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.generatedetailedcostreport.json#L41 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'forecast' in:'Forecast_Usage'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L586 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'forecast' in:'Forecast_ExternalCloudProviderUsage'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L662 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'query' in:'Query_Usage'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L955 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'query' in:'Query_UsageByExternalCloudProviderType'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L1063 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: includeMonetaryCommitment Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L1182 |
|
| The resource 'ExportExecution' does not have get operation, please add it. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.exports.json#L779 |
|
| The resource 'Dimension' does not have get operation, please add it. Location: Microsoft.CostManagement/stable/2021-10-01/costmanagement.json#L1711 |
️️✔️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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️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
|
This was referenced Jan 14, 2022
basma-msft
approved these changes
Jan 18, 2022
|
Hi @msyyc , would you help take a look at the Python breaking change, thanks! |
|
|
|
NewApiVersionRequired reason: |
|
Hi @mitagarg, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @mitagarg, 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. |
|
Am adding the missing fields that were already present in the API. I am just adding them in the swagger and this causing the breaking change. |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
changlong-liu
approved these changes
Jan 21, 2022
|
Hi @mitagarg , since the pipeline is hang, would you please sign the license/cla manually? Thanks. https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs?pullRequest=17354 |
This was referenced Jan 22, 2022
mstrisoline
pushed a commit
to mstrisoline/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2022
…rsion stable/2021-10-01 (Azure#17354) * removing the mutable property * Missing properties Co-authored-by: Mita Garg <v-migarg@microsoft.com>
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
…rsion stable/2021-10-01 (Azure#17354) * removing the mutable property * Missing properties Co-authored-by: Mita Garg <v-migarg@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.
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 are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.
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.