[IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review #15621

leigharubin · 2021-08-11T17:07:56Z

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Changelog

Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:

What's the purpose of the update?
- Onboarding our Data Plane swagger to the azure-rest-api-specs repo. We are already a GA service (have been for several years), so this PR is our next API version but only the first one being merged to this repo. Thus, there will be make suggested changes which we can not fix do to needing to avoid breaking changes.
When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.

October 2021

When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
If updating an existing version, please select the specific langauge SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
- SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
- SDK of Python
- SDK of Java
- SDK of Js
- SDK of Go
- PowerShell
- CLI
- [?] Terraform

Contribution checklist:

I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and errors have all been fixed in this PR. How to fix?

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

Change to data plane APIs

Adding new properties

All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
- Adding a new service
- Adding new API(s)
- Adding a new API version
  -[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

Removing API(s) in a stable version
Removing properties in a stable version
Removing API version(s) in a stable version
Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

openapi-workflow-bot · 2021-08-11T17:07:57Z

Hi, @leigharubin Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.

PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.

For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator

If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com

openapi-workflow-bot · 2021-08-11T17:07:58Z

[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks.

openapi-pipeline-app · 2021-08-11T17:07:59Z

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️❌LintDiff: 31 Errors, 54 Warnings failed [Detail]

Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
- deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/readme.md tag:package-2021-10-01
Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
- deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/readme.md tag:default

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
`❌` D5001 - XmsExamplesRequired	Please provide x-ms-examples describing minimum/maximum property set for response/request payloads for operations. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L18
`❌` R2020 - RequiredPropertiesMissingInResourceModel	Model definition 'IndividualEnrollment' must have the properties 'name', 'id' and 'type' in its hierarchy and these properties must be marked as readonly. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L887
`❌` R2020 - RequiredPropertiesMissingInResourceModel	Model definition 'EnrollmentGroup' must have the properties 'name', 'id' and 'type' in its hierarchy and these properties must be marked as readonly. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L1287
`❌` R2054 - SecurityDefinitionsStructure	Every swagger/configuration must have a security definitions section and it must adhere to the structure described in: https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/master/docs/security-definitions-structure-validation.md Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L1
`❌` R2062 - XmsResourceInPutResponse	The 200 response model for an ARM PUT operation must have x-ms-azure-resource extension set to true in its hierarchy. Operation: 'IndividualEnrollment_CreateOrUpdate' Model: 'IndividualEnrollment'. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L64
`❌` R2062 - XmsResourceInPutResponse	The 200 response model for an ARM PUT operation must have x-ms-azure-resource extension set to true in its hierarchy. Operation: 'EnrollmentGroup_CreateOrUpdate' Model: 'EnrollmentGroup'. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L220
`❌` R3006 - BodyTopLevelProperties	Top level properties should be one of name, type, id, location, properties, tags, plan, sku, etag, managedBy, identity, zones. Model definition 'IndividualEnrollment' has extra properties ['registrationId,deviceId,registrationState,optionalDeviceInformation,attestation,capabilities,iotHubHostName,initialTwin,provisioningStatus,reprovisionPolicy,createdDateTimeUtc,lastUpdatedDateTimeUtc,allocationPolicy,iotHubs,customAllocationDefinition']. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L894
`❌` R3006 - BodyTopLevelProperties	Top level properties should be one of name, type, id, location, properties, tags, plan, sku, etag, managedBy, identity, zones. Model definition 'EnrollmentGroup' has extra properties ['enrollmentGroupId,attestation,capabilities,iotHubHostName,initialTwin,provisioningStatus,reprovisionPolicy,createdDateTimeUtc,lastUpdatedDateTimeUtc,allocationPolicy,iotHubs,customAllocationDefinition']. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L1294
`❌` R3023 - OperationsAPIImplementation	Operations API must be implemented for '/providers//operations'. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L18
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L50
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L112
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L160
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L206
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L268
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L316
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L362
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L410
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L492
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L538
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L588
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L670
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L716
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L766
`❌` R4007 - DefaultErrorResponseSchema	the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L844
`❌` R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses	The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.' Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L156
`❌` R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses	The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.' Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L312
`❌` R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses	The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.' Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L406
`❌` R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat	The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L482
`❌` R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat	The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L660
`❌` R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat	The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json#L834

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

The following tags are being changed in this PR

deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/readme.md#package-2021-10-01

️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

openapi-pipeline-app · 2021-08-11T17:07:59Z

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️[Staging] ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

 Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account.

️️✔️[Staging] SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Breaking Changes Tracking

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-net succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from d277432. SDK Automation 14.0.0

warn	Skip initScript due to not configured
command	sudo apt-get install -y dotnet-sdk-5.0
command	autorest --version=V2 --csharp --reflect-api-versions --license-header=MICROSOFT_MIT_NO_VERSION --use=@microsoft.azure/autorest.csharp@2.3.82 --csharp-sdks-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-net/sdk ../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/readme.md
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
warn	No package detected after generation

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]

⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from d277432. SDK Automation 14.0.0

command	./eng/mgmt/automation/init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initOutput.json
command	./eng/mgmt/automation/generate.py ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateOutput.json
cmderr	[generate.py] 2021-10-05 17:54:12 ERROR [Skip] readme path does not format as specification/*/resource-manager/readme.md
warn	No file changes detected after generation
warn	No package detected after generation

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-js warning [Detail]

⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from d277432. SDK Automation 14.0.0

warn	Skip initScript due to not configured
command	autorest --version=V2 --typescript --license-header=MICROSOFT_MIT_NO_VERSION --use=@microsoft.azure/autorest.typescript@4.7.0 --typescript-sdks-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-js/azure-sdk-for-js ../../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/readme.md
warn	No file changes detected after generation
warn	No package detected after generation

️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]

⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from d277432. Schema Automation 14.0.0

command	.sdkauto/initScript.sh ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initOutput.json
cmderr	[initScript.sh] WARN old lockfile
cmderr	[initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile The package-lock.json file was created with an old version of npm,
cmderr	[initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile so supplemental metadata must be fetched from the registry.
cmderr	[initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile
cmderr	[initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile This is a one-time fix-up, please be patient...
cmderr	[initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile
warn	File azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initOutput.json not found to read
command	.sdkauto/generateScript.sh ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/generateOutput.json
warn	No file changes detected after generation
warn	Skip detect changed packages

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

openapi-workflow-bot · 2021-08-11T17:09:46Z

Hi @leigharubin, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff.

Task	How to fix	Priority	Support (Microsoft alias)
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High	ruowan
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High	raychen, jianyxi
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High	raychen,jianyxi
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high	jianyxi, ruoxuan

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback."

ghost · 2021-08-29T16:01:51Z

Hi, @leigharubin. Your PR has no update for 14 days and it is marked as stale PR. If no further update for over 14 days, the bot will close the PR. If you want to refresh the PR, please remove no-recent-activity label.

mikekistler

There are a number of changes needed -- some minor but others more fundamental, like using the Azure error response body schema and pagination pattern.

...ation/deviceprovisioningservices/data-plane/Microsoft.Devices/stable/2021-10-01/service.json

leigharubin · 2021-09-15T20:01:08Z

@mikekistler is there a format / template for the README that is blocking this PR from merging?

mikekistler · 2021-09-16T02:50:00Z

I found a sample readme file here:

https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/92/Sample-ReadME

I think (hope) that is what you need.

mikekistler

All my concerns have been addressed. 👍

mikekistler · 2021-09-20T22:58:27Z

@JeffreyRichter @markweitzel @johanste @tg-msft @rysweet This API was through the board and the notes are in #15694. I think the team has addressed the whatever issues they could without introducing breaking changes (the service is already GA -- this PR is just to get the API defn into the repo).

Could we get one more thumbs up on this PR before we move it to approved?

markweitzel

Scope of review is captured in #15694
Looks good. Thank you.

JeffreyRichter

I wish the swagger was organized by HTTP methods (PUT, POST, GET, etc.). It should be organized by resource type instead.

leigharubin · 2021-09-29T20:28:47Z

Scope of review is captured in #15694 Looks good. Thank you.

@markweitzel Thank you! As noted in the PR, we will not be able to fix the "Swagger LintDiff" errors as this is a GA service but our first time uploading our swagger here, so fixing this would cause breaking changes. Could you please merge this PR without us needing to fix that automated check? @mikekistler said you could potentially help with this. Thanks!

markweitzel · 2021-09-29T20:58:58Z

Scope of review is captured in #15694 Looks good. Thank you.

@markweitzel Thank you! As noted in the PR, we will not be able to fix the "Swagger LintDiff" errors as this is a GA service but our first time uploading our swagger here, so fixing this would cause breaking changes. Could you please merge this PR without us needing to fix that automated check? @mikekistler said you could potentially help with this. Thanks!

@leigharubin -- I don't have perms to do the merge but will ping @lmazuel who, I believe does have permission.

tjprescott · 2021-09-30T23:49:06Z

@mikekistler if you are satisfied with the changes can you change your review to an approval? We should then be good to merge.

mikekistler

I am generally good with this except for my concern about simpler names. If we are going to create Azure SDK libraries for this service -- that appears to be the plan -- then this is our best opportunity to get the names right.

leigharubin · 2021-10-01T20:54:58Z

I am generally good with this except for my concern about simpler names. If we are going to create Azure SDK libraries for this service -- that appears to be the plan -- then this is our best opportunity to get the names right.

@mikekistler unfortunately due to needing to maintain back-compat when upgrading API versions, we will not be able to change these names as they will cause friction for the customer to upgrade to use new features.

tjprescott · 2021-10-01T21:55:23Z

@leigharubin I don't think @mikekistler means changing the names in the service, but aliasing them for SDK generation with x-ms-client-name. If this would be your first generated SDK, that would be prudent.

leigharubin · 2021-10-01T21:58:38Z

@leigharubin I don't think @mikekistler means changing the names in the service, but aliasing them for SDK generation with x-ms-client-name. If this would be your first generated SDK, that would be prudent.

@tjprescott I see, I was misunderstanding at first. However, we already have many versions of SDKs generated so I believe the same issue applies here as well.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/iot-dps/

mikekistler

Looks good! 👍

All my concerns have been addressed.

leigharubin · 2021-10-05T16:22:41Z

Seems like we have all the necessary approvals 👍 . Thanks @mikekistler and @JeffreyRichter.

@lmazuel can you please merge this PR? Thanks!

* Create service.json * Fix "expecting boolean, found string" issues * Update custom-words.txt * Create service.json * Update service.json * Add readme files * Delete readme.go.md * Delete readme.java.md * Delete readme.nodejs.md * Delete readme.python.md * Update readme.md * Create readme.go.md * Update readme.go.md * Update readme.go.md * Remove pattern and max length attributes * Update service.json * Delete readme.go.md * Create readme.go.md * Delete readme.go.md * Update readme.md

Create service.json

64c6c05

openapi-pipeline-app bot added the CI-FixRequiredOnFailure label Aug 11, 2021

Fix "expecting boolean, found string" issues

3e42c51

leigharubin changed the title ~~Create service.json~~ DPS DataPlane API Review Aug 11, 2021

Update custom-words.txt

8b89375

leigharubin marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2021 17:37

openapi-assignment-bot bot assigned tjprescott Aug 11, 2021

czubair added the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label Aug 11, 2021

mikekistler mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2021

[Azure IoT Device Provisioning Service ] REST API review for (DPS) #15694

Closed

ghost added the no-recent-activity label Aug 29, 2021

mikekistler self-requested a review August 31, 2021 15:42

ghost removed the no-recent-activity label Aug 31, 2021

mikekistler requested changes Aug 31, 2021

View reviewed changes

mikekistler added Reviewed-ChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee request changes after review and removed APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. labels Aug 31, 2021

leigharubin added 2 commits September 14, 2021 09:21

Create service.json

728f04f

Update service.json

31ebb0b

Add readme files

516ea30

openapi-pipeline-app bot added CI-FixRequiredOnFailure and removed CI-FixRequiredOnFailure labels Sep 16, 2021

leigharubin added 2 commits September 16, 2021 10:17

Delete readme.go.md

22a8223

Delete readme.java.md

00b4fc8

mikekistler self-requested a review September 20, 2021 22:42

mikekistler reviewed Sep 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

markweitzel linked an issue Sep 21, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request

[Azure IoT Device Provisioning Service ] REST API review for (DPS) #15694

Closed

markweitzel approved these changes Sep 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

leigharubin added 5 commits September 21, 2021 17:10

Update service.json

f49837a

Delete readme.go.md

9f32587

Create readme.go.md

6d5bcbd

Delete readme.go.md

dcd4331

Update readme.md

18e8dc2

markweitzel changed the title ~~DPS DataPlane API Review~~ [DPS] DataPlane API Review Sep 28, 2021

markweitzel requested a review from JeffreyRichter September 28, 2021 23:23

JeffreyRichter approved these changes Sep 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

tjprescott added the Approved-LintDiff label Sep 30, 2021

mikekistler reviewed Oct 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

leigharubin requested a review from mikekistler October 1, 2021 15:16

mikekistler approved these changes Oct 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

tjprescott merged commit d277432 into Azure:main Oct 5, 2021

markweitzel changed the title ~~[DPS] DataPlane API Review~~ [IoT - Device Update] DataPlane API Review Oct 7, 2021

markweitzel changed the title ~~[IoT - Device Update] DataPlane API Review~~ [IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review Oct 7, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review #15621

[IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review #15621

leigharubin commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Breaking Changes Tracking

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

ghost commented Aug 29, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

leigharubin commented Sep 15, 2021

mikekistler commented Sep 16, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

mikekistler commented Sep 20, 2021

markweitzel left a comment

JeffreyRichter left a comment

leigharubin commented Sep 29, 2021

markweitzel commented Sep 29, 2021

tjprescott commented Sep 30, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

leigharubin commented Oct 1, 2021

tjprescott commented Oct 1, 2021

leigharubin commented Oct 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading

mikekistler left a comment

leigharubin commented Oct 5, 2021

[IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review #15621

[IoT - Device Provisioning] DataPlane API Review #15621

Conversation

leigharubin commented Aug 11, 2021 • edited Loading

Changelog

Contribution checklist:

ARM API Review Checklist

Breaking Change Review Checklist

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 • edited Loading

Swagger Validation Report

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 • edited Loading

Swagger Generation Artifacts

Breaking Changes Tracking

openapi-workflow-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2021

ghost commented Aug 29, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

leigharubin commented Sep 15, 2021

mikekistler commented Sep 16, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikekistler commented Sep 20, 2021

markweitzel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JeffreyRichter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

leigharubin commented Sep 29, 2021

markweitzel commented Sep 29, 2021

tjprescott commented Sep 30, 2021

mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

leigharubin commented Oct 1, 2021

tjprescott commented Oct 1, 2021

leigharubin commented Oct 1, 2021 • edited Loading

mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

leigharubin commented Oct 5, 2021

leigharubin commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Aug 11, 2021 •

edited

Loading

leigharubin commented Oct 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading