-
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
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Consumption to add version stable/2019-11-01 #12942
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Consumption to add version stable/2019-11-01 #12942
Conversation
Hi, @octalimon 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 |
---|---|
Guid used in model definition 'ModernUsageDetailProperties' for property 'meterId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json#L2155 |
|
Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: ReservationRecommendationsBySubscription-Legacy Location: Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json#L1132 |
|
Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: ReservationRecommendationsByResourceGroup-Legacy Location: Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json#L1132 |
|
Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: ReservationRecommendationsByBillingAccount-Legacy Location: Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json#L1132 |
|
Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: ReservationRecommendationsByBillingProfile-Modern Location: Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json#L1132 |
️️✔️
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): 39 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
- original: preview/2019-05-01-preview/consumption.json <---> new: stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
️⚠️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version): 11 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
- original: stable/2019-10-01/consumption.json <---> new: stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️
[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 50 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
Rule | Message |
---|---|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'MeterDetails' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'UsageDetailsListResult' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'LegacyUsageDetailProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ModernUsageDetailProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationSummariesListResult' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationSummaryProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationDetailsListResult' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationDetailProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationRecommendationDetailsProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
"readme":"consumption/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2019-11", "details":"The schema 'ReservationRecommendationDetailsCalculatedSavingsProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
️️✔️
[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️
[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Hi, @octalimon your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). cc @ |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cation/consumption/resource-manager/Microsoft.Consumption/stable/2019-11-01/consumption.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
} | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"Resource": { |
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.
Please reference the standard resource definitions here: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/common-types/resource-management/v1/types.json#L9 You will likely use either TrackedResource or ProxyResource
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.
So in our definition ProxyResource has eTags, and in the common one it does not, also for Resource we have defined tags + etags. If you think this is ok I would like to keep it as it is for now.
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.
I just saw that there are some validation errors because of this, I will work on it. thanks!
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.
I don't see any changes related to this.
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.
I did take a look but did not update the comment, sorry about that, I was looking for example UsageDetail, and it has tags, however it does not have a location currently in the response, this will end up with several errors in case to use TrackedResource (most of them falls in the same category).
It will required code changes from several teams, Mark, do you think we can deliver this one as it is in order to get the completeness part, then we can ask each team to see how to move to the correct Resources definitions?
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.
Note: if any of the suggested changes would result in a breaking change, then please do not make the breakign change (and please note this)
} | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"ErrorResponse": { |
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.
Please reference the default error response: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/common-types/resource-management/v1/types.json#L277 unless this results in a breaking change
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.
Please indicate whether this would be a breaking change. There is good reason to use the common definition - it allows uniform handling of errors across RPs fro generated SDKs (and also for customers using the REST API).
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.
yes, it ends up with breaking changes.
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
Hi, @octalimon your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). cc @markcowl |
Why was this marked as breaking change? if this was successful ? https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/12942/checks?check_run_id=1938628179 |
The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: #12777 #12555 #13039 #13097 #12822 #13280 #12942 #13248 #13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
Adding fixes made in 2019-10-01 to 2019-11-01 (Azure#13414) The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12777 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12555 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13039 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13097 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12822 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13280 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12942 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13248 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
Adding fixes made in 2019-10-01 to 2019-11-01 (#13414) The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12777 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12555 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13039 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13097 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12822 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13280 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12942 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13248 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
Adding fixes made in 2019-10-01 to 2019-11-01 (Azure#13414) The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12777 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12555 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13039 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13097 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12822 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13280 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12942 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13248 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
Adding fixes made in 2019-10-01 to 2019-11-01 (Azure#13414) The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12777 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12555 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13039 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13097 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12822 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13280 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12942 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13248 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
Adding fixes made in 2019-10-01 to 2019-11-01 (#13414) The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12777 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12555 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13039 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13097 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12822 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13280 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#12942 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13248 Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
…on stable/2019-11-01 (Azure#12942) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Consumption from version stable/2019-10-01 to version 2019-11-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Fixing spell syntax error. * Fixin some types and adding description to ServiceInfo1 and ServiceInfo2 * Updating description of resourceId, serviceInfo1 and serviceInfo2 * Adding usage detail to the resourceId definition
The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure#12777 Azure#12555 Azure#13039 Azure#13097 Azure#12822 Azure#13280 Azure#12942 Azure#13248 Azure#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
…on stable/2019-11-01 (Azure#12942) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Consumption from version stable/2019-10-01 to version 2019-11-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Fixing spell syntax error. * Fixin some types and adding description to ServiceInfo1 and ServiceInfo2 * Updating description of resourceId, serviceInfo1 and serviceInfo2 * Adding usage detail to the resourceId definition
The PR for adding new version 2019-11-01 took longer than expected to be approved, so some fixes made in 10-01 were not included in 2019-11-01 version. The missing changes were the following PRs: Azure#12777 Azure#12555 Azure#13039 Azure#13097 Azure#12822 Azure#13280 Azure#12942 Azure#13248 Azure#13378 This PR is to add those corrections to 2019-11-01 version
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.
NOTE: This version was missing and was reported by an s360 item, there are no changes in api, and the api version has been live for a while.