Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Web ant95 2021 03 01 #16252

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

Web ant95 2021 03 01 #16252

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

shubDhond
Copy link
Contributor

@shubDhond shubDhond commented Sep 30, 2021 •
edited
Loading

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. 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.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. 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
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

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
Copy link

Hi, @shubDhond 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
    Copy link

    [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
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Sep 30, 2021 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

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

    Rule Message
    ❌ R4019 - GetCollectionResponseSchema The response in the GET collection operation 'AppServicePlans_ListVnets' does not match the response definition in the individual GET operation 'AppServicePlans_GetVnetFromServerFarm' .
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/AppServicePlans.json#L884
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DeletedWebApps' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/DeletedWebApps.json#L106
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L281
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L334
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L954
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L1014
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L102
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L405
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L712
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L118
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L161
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L206
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L267
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L313
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L375
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L432
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L488
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L558
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L608
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L660
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L718
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L781
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L844
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L901
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L955
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1009
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1066
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1125
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1206
    ⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1267
    ️️✔️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: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
    The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
    Rule Message
    ❌ 1029 - ReadonlyPropertyChanged The read only property has changed from 'true' to 'false'.
    New: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L2892:9
    Old: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-02-01/StaticSites.json#L2892:9
    ️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There is no credential detected.
    ️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

    ️️✔️[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
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Sep 30, 2021 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

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

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌[Staging] SDK Breaking Change Tracking failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

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

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

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

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

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

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌ azure-sdk-for-go-track2 failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

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

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️🔄 azure-resource-manager-schemas inProgress [Detail]
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @shubDhond shubDhond added NotReadyForReview <valid label in PR review process>It is in draft for swagger or not swagger PR WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 30, 2021
    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

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

    TaskHow to fixPrioritySupport (Microsoft alias)
    AvocadoFix-AvocadoHighruowan
    Semantic validationFix-SemanticValidation-ErrorHighraychen, jianyxi
    Model validationFix-ModelValidation-ErrorHighraychen,jianyxi
    LintDiffFix-LintDiffhighjianyxi, ruoxuan
     If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback."

    This was referenced Sep 30, 2021
    Draft
    Draft
    Draft
    @openapi-sdkautomation openapi-sdkautomation bot mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2021
    Draft
    @mentat9
    Copy link
    Member

    mentat9 commented Sep 30, 2021

    @shubDhond, set this PR to Open and send email to the current ARM API Review oncall when you are ready for ARM review.

    @shubDhond shubDhond removed the NotReadyForReview <valid label in PR review process>It is in draft for swagger or not swagger PR label Oct 1, 2021
    @shubDhond shubDhond marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2021 17:28
    @shubDhond shubDhond requested a review from naveedaz as a code owner October 1, 2021 17:28
    @RamyasreeChakka
    Copy link
    Member

    @shubDhond Reviewed the delta changes from the previous approved API versions. LGTM.

    @RamyasreeChakka RamyasreeChakka added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Oct 4, 2021
    @weidongxu-microsoft
    Copy link
    Member

    Please check LintDiff errors.

    @weidongxu-microsoft
    Copy link
    Member

    weidongxu-microsoft commented Oct 20, 2021 •
    edited
    Loading

    @shubDhond

    There is one error in "Cross-Version Breaking Changes", please double check whether this is intended.

    I can merge when you are ready (I still see some PR on private repo, not sure whether they are intended for 2021-03 as well).
    E.g. https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/pull/5061

    Also please make sure all your resourceTypes is onboarded when request SDK release (because last version was not...).

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2021
    Merged
    25 tasks
    @shubDhond shubDhond closed this Oct 25, 2021
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft approved these changes

    @naveedaz naveedaz Awaiting requested review from naveedaz naveedaz is a code owner

    Assignees

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft

    Labels
    ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review CI-BreakingChange-Go
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
    6 participants
    @shubDhond @mentat9 @RamyasreeChakka @weidongxu-microsoft @naveedaz @mkarmark