[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.AlertsManagement to add version preview/2021-08-08-preview #16564
Conversation
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
|
Hi, @inballeibovitch 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 |
|---|---|
| Since operation 'Alerts_GetAll' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L99 |
|
| Since operation 'SmartGroups_GetAll' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L32 |
|
| 'GET' operation 'Alerts_MetaData' should use method name 'Get' or Method name start with 'List'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L63 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L792 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L995 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L1075 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L1137 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L506 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L678 |
|
| The summary and description values should not be same. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L105 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L719 |
|
| The API version:2019-05-05-preview having been in a preview state over one year , please move it to GA or retire. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L4 |
|
| The API version:2019-05-05-preview having been in a preview state over one year , please move it to GA or retire. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L4 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Resolve Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L295 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Resolve Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L224 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.AlertsManagement/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L30 |
|
The schema 'errorResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L392 |
|
The schema 'errorResponseBody' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L400 |
|
The schema 'Resource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L424 |
|
The schema 'ManagedResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L445 |
|
The schema 'PatchProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L797 |
|
The schema 'PatchObject' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L806 |
|
The schema 'operation' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L680 |
|
The schema 'operationsList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L711 |
|
The schema 'errorResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L730 |
|
The schema 'errorResponseBody' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L738 |
|
The schema 'Resource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json#L762 |
|
The schema 'errorResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L444 |
|
The schema 'errorResponseBody' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L452 |
|
The schema 'Resource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2019-05-05-preview/SmartGroups.json#L476 |
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L800 |
|
| The tracked resource, 'ManagedResource', must have a list by resource group operation.(This rule does not apply for tenant level resources.) Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L445 |
|
| The tracked resource, 'ManagedResource', must have a list by subscriptions operation. Location: Microsoft.AlertsManagement/preview/2021-08-08-preview/AlertProcessingRules.json#L445 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/alertsmanagement/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/alertsmanagement/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-preview-2021-08 |
️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️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.
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
|
[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. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @inballeibovitch, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @inballeibovitch, 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. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
@jianyexi Also, lintDiff errors refer to files that were not changed in this PR, can we suppress these errors? |
raych1
reviewed
Nov 1, 2021
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "paths": { | ||
| "/providers/Microsoft.AlertsManagement/operations": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you remove this path in new version? I don't see you copy previous paths to this version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@raych1 AlertsManagement.json in the 2019-05-05-preview version contains both the operations API, and alerts APIs. In this version we only change the "alerts processing rule" APIs. So we referenced the 2019 version for the alerts and operation APIs (2019-05-05-preview/AlertsManagement.json) under the package-preview-2021-08.
|
@inballeibovitch , can you fix |
|
@inballeibovitch For the lintDiff errors, could you fix the following part, others can be ignored : |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
removed
CI-BreakingChange-Go-V2
CI-BreakingChange-Python-Track2
labels
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
@jianyexi, After I fixed the lintDiff error R4010 - RequiredDefaultResponse, The lint diff check failed with AutoRest exception "swagger-document/individual/schema-validator - FAILED". Is this okay? |
No, should not introduce this error, you might need to double check your change |
|
@inballeibovitch Since your PR introduced breaking change , could you follow the action at #16564 (comment) to get approval from breaking change review |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
jianyexi
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2021
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-BreakingChange-Go
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
This was referenced Nov 11, 2021
Closed
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2021
…soft.AlertsManagement to add version preview/2021-08-08-preview (#2046) Create to sync Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#16564 [ReCreate this PR](https://github.com/azure-resource-manager-schemas/compare/main...AzureSDKAutomation:sdkAuto/alertsmanagement?expand=1)
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
…version preview/2021-08-08-preview (Azure#16564) * rename action rules to alert processing rules * rename in examples * remove alertsmanagement from 2021-08-08 * fix lintdif * update operations descriptions * prettier fix * fix lntDiff error * remove * add default response * add type object * fix descriptions and integer format * fix errors * fix errors
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
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.