Added CheckNameAvailability, Identity, systemData, used ErrorResponse v2 in DeviceUpdate #13750
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -34,6 +34,52 @@ | |
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "paths": { | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/checknameavailability": { | ||
| "post": { | ||
| "description": "Checks ADU resource name availability.", | ||
| "operationId": "CheckNameAvailability", | ||
| "parameters": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/parameters/ApiVersionParameter" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/parameters/SubscriptionIdParameter" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v2/types.json#/definitions/CheckNameAvailabilityRequest" | ||
| }, | ||
| "in": "body", | ||
| "name": "request", | ||
| "required": true, | ||
| "description": "Check Name Availability Request." | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "200": { | ||
| "description": "Check Name Availability Response.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v2/types.json#/definitions/CheckNameAvailabilityResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "default": { | ||
| "description": "Error response describing the reason for operation failure.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/ErrorDefinition" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-examples": { | ||
| "CheckNameAvailability_Available": { | ||
| "$ref": "./examples/CheckNameAvailability_Available.json" | ||
| }, | ||
| "CheckNameAvailability_AlreadyExists": { | ||
| "$ref": "./examples/CheckNameAvailability_AlreadyExists.json" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "deprecated": false | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/accounts": { | ||
| "get": { | ||
| "description": "Returns list of Accounts.", | ||
|
|
@@ -221,9 +267,6 @@ | |
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "202": { | ||
| "description": "Async operation to delete Account was created." | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
@@ -276,6 +319,12 @@ | |
| "$ref": "#/definitions/Account" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "201": { | ||
| "description": "Account updated successfully.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/Account" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "default": { | ||
| "description": "Error response describing the reason for operation failure.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
|
|
@@ -455,9 +504,6 @@ | |
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "202": { | ||
| "description": "Async operation to delete Instance was created." | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
@@ -567,6 +613,10 @@ | |
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "systemData": { | ||
| "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v1/types.json#/definitions/systemData", | ||
| "readOnly": true | ||
| }, | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "description": "Device Update account properties.", | ||
| "x-ms-client-flatten": true, | ||
|
|
@@ -595,6 +645,10 @@ | |
| "readOnly": true | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "identity": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/Identity", | ||
| "description": "The type of identity used for the resource." | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
@@ -624,6 +678,10 @@ | |
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "systemData": { | ||
| "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v1/types.json#/definitions/systemData", | ||
| "readOnly": true | ||
| }, | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "description": "Device Update instance properties.", | ||
| "x-ms-client-flatten": true, | ||
|
|
@@ -682,6 +740,33 @@ | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "Identity": { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. this is available in common-types, any reason to not re-use that? There was a problem hiding this comment. The common type includes identity type enums we do not support at the moment like "UserAssigned" and "SystemAssigned, UserAssigned" There was a problem hiding this comment. Also I think the common definition did no include "None" which is a bug. There was a problem hiding this comment. Both common types v1 and v2 contain single enum value: SystemAssigned I can submit a PR to extend that. What should be the values? Or how Swagger support multiple values? There was a problem hiding this comment. please leave as-is for now, we are discussing making the update to the common-types files to support UserAssigned and None |
||
| "description": "Identity for the resource.", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "principalId": { | ||
| "readOnly": true, | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The principal ID of resource identity." | ||
| }, | ||
| "tenantId": { | ||
| "readOnly": true, | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The tenant ID of resource." | ||
| }, | ||
| "type": { | ||
| "enum": [ | ||
| "SystemAssigned", | ||
| "None" | ||
| ], | ||
| "x-ms-enum": { | ||
| "name": "ResourceIdentityType", | ||
| "modelAsString": false | ||
| }, | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The identity type." | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "IotHubSettings": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "description": "Device Update account integration with IoT Hub settings.", | ||
|
|
@@ -720,6 +805,10 @@ | |
| "AccountUpdate": { | ||
| "description": "Request payload used to update and existing Accounts.", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "identity": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/Identity", | ||
| "description": "The type of identity used for the resource." | ||
| }, | ||
| "location": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "The geo-location where the resource lives" | ||
|
|
||
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.
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.
a patch should not return a 201, but a 202 to indicate async completion - https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/Addendum.md#updating-using-patch
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.
Usually PUT returns 201 and DELETE returns 202. In our case PATCH initiates the same flow as PUT hence 201.
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.
201 is Created, a PATCH cannot be used to create a resource - and hence it is not a valid status code to return
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.
We are behind RPaaS and currently they do not support 202 for async operation only 201 even for patch. We reached out to them and they said they will work either to introduce 202 or give guidance to accept 201 for there reviews in the future. For now here is the documentation https://armwiki.azurewebsites.net/rpaas/async.html If there are any questions please reach out to RPaaS Team.
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 confirmed with the RPaaS team that this is an issue today, so I will sign off. However they are looking at changing it so please work with them as to what they want you to do for this PR