Workbooks correctness 2021-08-01 #16249
Conversation
|
Hi, @vutran01 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 In reply to: 931638398 In reply to: 931638398 In reply to: 931638398 |
|
[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-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @vutran01 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). In reply to: 931638433 |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @vutran01, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
| "userAssignedIdentities": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "additionalProperties": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/WorkbookUserAssignedIdentities" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If possible please refactor the $ref to UserAssignedIdentity definition in common managed identity type definitions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
types.json also has an identity field but it's a shorten version. i'll use this one
| "default": { | ||
| "description": "Error response describing why the operation failed.", | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/WorkbookError" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you instead $ref to "ErrroResponse" in https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json ? #ByDesign
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we also dump out the innererror which types does not do
...applicationinsights/resource-manager/Microsoft.Insights/stable/2021-08-01/workbooks_API.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ These are the global settings for the ApplicationInsights API. | |||
| title: ApplicationInsightsManagementClient | |||
| description: Composite Swagger for Application Insights Management Client | |||
| openapi-type: arm | |||
| tag: package-2021-10 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just realize you are downgrade the tag version? #Resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
update to new tag=package-2021-11-01
ArcturusZhang
added
the
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
|
@jianyexi to help check whether it is correct alert for Linter & cross API breaking change. |
All the linter errors are existing errors before the PR, but the swagger in the previous default tag is not full , so they aren't filtered out. And the breaking change is correct , as the 'Operation API' schema has changed due to the reference to the |
|
Hi @vutran01, 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. In reply to: 969962593 |
|
operation changes are not needed for this pr, will remove this breaking changes. cleaning up this file is not needed In reply to: 969962593 |
|
removed the BreakingChangePReviewRequired flag as Operation API is no longer being changed in this pr In reply to: 970082946 |
go generator code happen issue:
|
|
@804873052 we're really confused here
why is the tool doing validations across/between api versions? possibly one or other of those api versions explicitly changed the paths to be lower case for other reasons that api reviews required? |
|
I opened up #17215 for the duplicate |
* set default tag to package-2021-03-only * new default tag and add only workbooks to release * update package tag with same RP as last package * update tag name * Update readme.python.md * change definition name * remove operations * fix missingtypeobject in workbooks * fix up model validation errors * copy from 2021-03-08 to 2021-08-01 * 2021-08-01 changes * fix prettier errors * use common types where possible * fix displayName errors * use newer myworkbooks and workbooktemplates * restore update params due to location * update tags * remove the only verison * update types to v3 * restore the operation * remove operation file * restore operation as it's needed for some updates * set to types to v1 to be consistent * update name * update to later tag * use unique definition * don't release operation in this pr Co-authored-by: msyyc <70930885+msyyc@users.noreply.github.com>
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:
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
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.
-[ ] 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.
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.