-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
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.
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
Update CommunicationTurn swagger and add CommunicationIdentity swagger to preview folder #12881
Conversation
…cationErrorResponse type
…cationTurn swagger
Hi, @apattath 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 |
---|---|
1033 - RemovedProperty |
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'innerError' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesCommon/stable/2021-03-07/common.json#L30:7 Old: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesTurn/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationTurn.json#L61:7 |
️⚠️
LintDiff: 6 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 |
---|---|
OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json#L15 |
|
OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json#L61 |
|
OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json#L101 |
|
OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json#L141 |
|
OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesTurn/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationTurn.json#L15 |
|
'body' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json#L26 |
️️✔️
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): 7 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
️️✔️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️
[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
Rule | Message |
---|---|
"readme":"communication/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-22-preview1", "details":"Checking for duplicate schemas, this could take a (long) while. Run with --verbose for more detail." |
️️✔️
[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️
[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment. |
Hi @apattath, 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. |
@RezaJooyandeh @DominikMe @ajpeacock0 @alexandra142 - tagging all of you for review as well. |
I believe the breaking change is from the change made by @DominikMe in his earlier PR (#12799) to use the common type for CommunicationErrorResponse. According to that PR, it really isn't a breaking change due to following reasons: Justification: None of the SDK is released. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@johanste could you provide the approval?
Justification:
None of the SDK is released.
The breaking change is about renaming a property from "innerError" to "innererror" (the new name follows the API guideline ref).
The service has not yet been picked by customers, and the innerError property is not populated at the moment.
Same rationale as in #12799.
...crosoft.CommunicationServicesIdentity/preview/2021-02-22-preview1/CommunicationIdentity.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…r to preview folder (Azure#12881) * update Identity and Turn swaggers to use common definition of CommunicationErrorResponse type * Update Turn swagger to use definitions from CommunicationIdentity swagger * update CommunicationIdentity to preview version to match with CommunicationTurn swagger * update readme file with preview version of CommnicationIdentity.json * add examples for CommunicationIdentity Co-authored-by: Avin Pattath <avinp@microsoft.com>
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Following changes are made in this PR:
Updates to CommunicationTurn swagger (Note, this Turn swagger is not yet released to public):
Update to CommunicationIdentity swagger:
This change is needed since CommunicationIdentity and CommunicationTurn both go into the same SDK package and need to align on version (otherwise the generated SDK hardcodes the newer version).
Update to Readme.md
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 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.