Addendum | Access Reviews reviewer and stats APIs #10445
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
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| 'PUT' operation 'AccessReviewDefaultSettings_Put' 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. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L655 |
|
| 'PATCH' operation 'AccessReviewInstanceMyDecisions_Patch' 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. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L972 |
|
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'AccessReviewDefaultSettings_Put' Request Model: 'AccessReviewScheduleSettings' Response Model: 'AccessReviewDefaultSettings' New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L651 |
|
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'AccessReviewScheduleDefinitions_CreateOrUpdateById' Request Model: 'AccessReviewScheduleDefinitionProperties' Response Model: 'AccessReviewScheduleDefinition' New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L188 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewDefaultSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewDefaultSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L655 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewInstanceModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewInstance' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L380 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewInstanceModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewInstance' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L826 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewInstanceModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewInstance' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L427 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewDefaultSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewDefaultSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L621 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AccessReviewInstanceModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AccessReviewInstance' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-05-01-preview/authorization-AccessReviewCalls.json#L474 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/authorization/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/authorization/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2020-04-preview |
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Azure CLI Extension Generation
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
azure-sdk-for-net
|
azure-sdk-for-python
|
azure-sdk-for-java
|
azure-sdk-for-python
|
azure-sdk-for-js
|
Trenton Generation
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
azure-sdk-for-go
|
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
1b97f33 to
702cc25
Compare
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
702cc25 to
28891ab
Compare
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-python-track2
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
28891ab to
0868c78
Compare
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
0868c78 to
c7cc159
Compare
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
The LintDiff validation is failing because of a requirement to support list by resource group. This is something that we don't support - we only support access reviews at the subscription level. |
Please help suppress the lint error and solve the conflict to get it ready to merge. https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/85/Swagger-Suppression-Process |
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
c7cc159 to
141ec8b
Compare
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-resource-manager-schemas
|
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
3dbb520 to
58c712d
Compare
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Dec 10, 2020
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
5 times, most recently
from
2f70b71 to
e1c4415
Compare
shubhamguptacal
force-pushed
the
accessreviews_reviewer_stats
branch
from
e1c4415 to
88d738c
Compare
|
There are failures in SDK generation for Java and net but those have been failing in previous PRs as well. For example: #11975 |
This was referenced Dec 11, 2020
DeMale
pushed a commit
to DeMale/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2020
* Added Access Reviews schema * Access Reviews Schema addendum | Expose reviewer and statistics APIs
dabenhamMic
pushed a commit
to dabenhamMic/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2020
* Added Access Reviews schema * Access Reviews Schema addendum | Expose reviewer and statistics APIs
giromm2ms
pushed a commit
to giromm2ms/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2020
* Added Access Reviews schema * Access Reviews Schema addendum | Expose reviewer and statistics APIs
25 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.
Overview
Note : There is an existing PR already for the first commit of the changes here: #10010. It's already been approved and it's waiting on a deployment. The changes in this PR are an addendum to the existing PR. For the purposes of this PR, please only review the second commit titled "Access Reviews Schema addendum | Expose reviewer and statistics APIs"
The following is an overview of the end to end flow for access reviews scenario.
Changes
So far, we've exposed admin APIs which allow administrators to create review definitions and manage them. Now, we're exposing APIs that a reviewer can call to get all of the access review instances assigned to them. This is exposed as an unauthorized tenant-level API. This tenant-level API lists out all the access review instances assigned to the calling user. The results returned are scoped down to the records where the calling user is an approver. Additionally, the reviewer can drill-down into the decisions for an instance and then record a decision by updating the access review decision record.
There are some additional changes to allow reviewers that are specified dynamically(such as managers) and some statistics APIs are exposed.
Routes
The existing set of routes are as follows:
Management APIs
/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions
/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions/{id}/instances
/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions/{id}/instances/{id}/decisions
The new set of APIs exposed are:
Reviewer APIs(Tenant scope and Unauthorized)
/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions?$expand=instances&$filter=assignedToMeForReview() and (instances/any(instance: instance/status eq ‘InProgress’)
/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions/{id}/instances?$filter=assignedToMeForReview() and status eq ‘InProgress’
/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions/{id}/instances/{id}/decisions?$filter=assignedToMeForReview()
/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewInstancesAssignedForMyApproval/{id}/decisionStatistics/assignedToMeForReview
/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewInstancesAssignedForMyApproval/{id}/acceptRecommendations (POST)
Management API :
/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/Microsoft.Authorization/accessReviewScheduleDefinitions/{id}/instances/{id}/decisionStatistics/default