[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.KeyVault to add version preview/2020-04-01-preview #12619
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
jiacheng-L
requested review from
heaths,
jlichwa and
RandalliLama
as code owners
|
Hi, @jiacheng-L 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 property 'metricSpecifications' in response that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/providers.json#L129:7 Old: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/providers.json#L129:7 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 3 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.7.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.5 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.7.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.5 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: ignoreMissingVnetServiceEndpoint New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L1735 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: fillGapWithZero New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/providers.json#L211 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: toBeExportedForShoebox New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/providers.json#L232 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️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.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Jan 25, 2021
This was referenced Jan 25, 2021
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2021
heaths
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2021
| }, | ||
| "ignoreMissingVnetServiceEndpoint": { | ||
| "type": "boolean", | ||
| "description": "Property to specify whether NRP will ignore the check if parent subnet has serviceEndpoints configured" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: missing punctuation, which most other descriptions have. This also improves the generated SDK documentation.
Suggested change
| "description": "Property to specify whether NRP will ignore the check if parent subnet has serviceEndpoints configured" | |
| "description": "Property to specify whether NRP will ignore the check if parent subnet has serviceEndpoints configured." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Several other inconsistencies in changes contained within this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. I will fix the missing punctuation and space
| }, | ||
| "unit": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The metric unit. Possible values include: 'Bytes', 'Count', 'Milliseconds'" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this and other constrained properties be enums to better support SDKs and validation by the CLI?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this one is only used in 200 response.
| }, | ||
| "displayName": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description":"Display name of dimension" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing space. I only mention it since the prettier check may fail.
jlichwa
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2021
yungezz
reviewed
Feb 1, 2021
| "description": "Display description of Metric specification." | ||
| }, | ||
| "unit": { | ||
| "type": "string", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just curious, why use string instead of enum?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The whole specification metric is read only for customer. We expose these metrics via public metrics REST API. The values of these properties are possible values. They are not the only values as far as I know.
| }, | ||
| "aggregationType": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The metric aggregation type. Possible values include: 'Average', 'Count', 'Total'." |
| }, | ||
| "supportedAggregationTypes": { | ||
| "type": "array", | ||
| "description": "The supported aggregation types for the metrics.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's difference between supportedAggregationTypes and aggregationType ? Will it be clear to define aggregationType as enum definition, then type of supportedAggregationTypes be aggregationType?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I know, SupportedAggregationTypes is a composite of the Saturation metric as insights does not have a mechanism in which we can specify which sampling type to present to the customer.
This PR is to fix swagger quality issue in s360. These two properties are already defined in our source code. It should not be a good way to update the source code at this moment.
| "type": "boolean", | ||
| "description": "Property to specify whether to fill gap with zero." | ||
| }, | ||
| "internalMetricName": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The whole block I added in the providers.json is read-only.
|
hi @ArcturusZhang could you pls help to confirm impact to Go SDK? thanks. |
Merged
25 tasks
Go SDK impact is mentioned here: #12475 |
yungezz
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2021
|
|
@yungezz this PR will not introduce breaking changes to go SDK. |
|
For python, the PR is ok |
This was referenced Feb 8, 2021
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
…preview/2020-04-01-preview (Azure#12619)
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
Please ensure to add changelog with 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
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API 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.