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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add flushConnection to NSG #19085

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 26, 2022
Merged

Add flushConnection to NSG #19085

merged 1 commit into from
May 26, 2022

Conversation

Satya-anshu
Copy link
Contributor

@Satya-anshu Satya-anshu commented May 16, 2022 •
edited by raych1
Loading

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month. - Code is already deployed in prod regions. It's behind a dynamic setting.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month. - [June 2022]
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

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.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] 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.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @Satya-anshu Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

    • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vscswagger@microsoft.com

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 16, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail]
    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

    Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

    Rule Message
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRulePropertiesFormat' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L719
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Network/stable/2022-01-01/networkSecurityGroup.json#L827
    ️️✔️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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.

    ️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

    ️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
    ️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SpellCheck.
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 16, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️SDK Breaking Change Tracking warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌ azure-sdk-for-net failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go-track2 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-js warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌ azure-powershell failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @ghost ghost added the Network label May 16, 2022
    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi, @Satya-anshu 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 openapi-workflow-bot bot added ARMReview WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels May 16, 2022
    @Satya-anshu
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    This is same PR as the one here: #18393

    It was signed off but due to a bug, that PR had to be reverted. Now that fix has been rolled out, we can go ahead with this swagger update.

    @azure-sdk azure-sdk mentioned this pull request May 16, 2022
    Closed
    This was referenced May 16, 2022
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    This was referenced May 16, 2022
    Closed
    Closed
    @raych1 raych1 removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required ARMReview labels May 26, 2022
    @raych1
    Copy link
    Contributor

    raych1 commented May 26, 2022

    This is same PR as the one here: #18393

    It was signed off but due to a bug, that PR had to be reverted. Now that fix has been rolled out, we can go ahead with this swagger update.

    Approved this.

    @raych1 raych1 merged commit 0346408 into network-2022-01-01 May 26, 2022
    lirenhe pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2022
    @MikhailTryakhov @uditmisra52
    @jashsing-mic @creepyghost @AndriiKalinichenko @ankaliniMS @vinaymundada27 @kaushik-ms @snagpal99 @kumaam @Satya-anshu @yanfa317 @gitlwh @anchalkpr @Gizachew-Eshetie
    Mitryakh/network 2022 01 01 (#19412)
    61e9487 
    * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Network from version stable/2021-08-01 to version 2022-01-01

* Updates readme

* Updates API version in new specs and examples

* Updated Explicit proxy settings by adding one boolean field to it (#19011)

* API for provider port (#19041)

* Update readme.md

* Create expressRouteProviderPort.json

* Create expressRouteProviderPortList.json

* Create expressRouteProviderPort.json

* Update custom-words.txt

* Update expressRouteProviderPort.json

* Update expressRouteProviderPortList.json

* Update expressRouteProviderPort.json

* Add WAF match variable operators (#18925)

### webapplicationfirewall.json
* Add GreaterThanOrEquals operator and Any operator to custom rule
  match conditions in WAF policy spec

* Add VirtualHub Router autoscale configuration (#19131)

Co-authored-by: Andrii Kalinichenko <ankalini@microsoft.com>

* Adding rule priority to Tls Proxy routing rule object model (#19135)

Co-authored-by: Vinay Mundada <vimundad@microsoft.com>

* swagger changes for new ssl policies (#19183)

* Update Swagger Spec for VMSS Packet Capture (#19202)

* Update Swagger Spec for VMSS Packet Capture

* Remove extra line

* Update Swagger spec for Connection Monitor VMSS (#19203)

* Adding new endpoint in ConnectionMonitor

* Changing ConnectionMonitor endpoints order

* Add flushConnection to NSG (#19085)

* Merge NetworkManger into 2022-01-01 (#19169)

* Merge NetworkManger into 2022-01-01

* Remove EffectiveVnet APIs

* Remove SecurityUser Resource

* update readme

* Fix as comments

* fix as comments

* remove network group type

* Add new parameter noInternetAdvertise to CustomIPPrefix (#19340)

* fix

* fix

Co-authored-by: Weiheng Li <weihl@microsoft.com>

* Route Server Integration feature swagger changes (#19215)

* Route Server Integration feature swagger changes

* prettier run changes

* updating api version in examples file

* fixing test errors

* fixing test errors

* fixing modelvalidation errors

* fixing test errors

* fixing modelvalidation errors

* changes based on review comments

* fixing lintdiff failure

* updating examples

* update wrong enum value for customipprefix (#19382)

* fix

* fix

* fix

Co-authored-by: Weiheng Li <weihl@microsoft.com>

* Updated ExplicitProxySettings to ExplicitProxy on Firewall Policy ver2022-01-01 (#19299)

Co-authored-by: Gizachew Eshetie <v-geshetie@microsoft.com>

* Add resource type (#19434)

Co-authored-by: Andrii Kalinichenko <ankalini@microsoft.com>

* Fix prettier errors (#19462)

Co-authored-by: Andrii Kalinichenko <ankalini@microsoft.com>

Co-authored-by: uditmisra52 <103006702+uditmisra52@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: jashsing-mic <79445297+jashsing-mic@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anurag Kishore <kishore.1337.anurag@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: AndriiKalinichenko <kalinichenkoandrew@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrii Kalinichenko <ankalini@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Vinay Jayant Mundada <vinaymundada27@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Vinay Mundada <vimundad@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: kaushik-ms <103559254+kaushik-ms@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: snagpal99 <95475229+snagpal99@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: kumaam <102141910+kumaam@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Satya-anshu <70507845+Satya-anshu@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: yanfa317 <53584318+yanfa317@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Weiheng Li <weihengli.tj@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Weiheng Li <weihl@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Anchal Kapoor <ankapoo@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Gizachew-Eshetie <gizchanie@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gizachew Eshetie <v-geshetie@microsoft.com>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers

    @raych1 raych1 raych1 approved these changes

    @MikhailTryakhov MikhailTryakhov Awaiting requested review from MikhailTryakhov

    Assignees

    @raych1 raych1

    Labels
    CI-BreakingChange-Go-V2 CI-BreakingChange-JavaScript Network
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
    2 participants
    @Satya-anshu @raych1