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

Release microsoft.api management 2023 03 01 preview #23792

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jun 25, 2023
Merged

Release microsoft.api management 2023 03 01 preview #23792

merged 11 commits into from
Jun 25, 2023

Conversation

solankisamir
Copy link
Member

@solankisamir solankisamir commented May 2, 2023 •
edited
Loading

ARM API Information (Control Plane)

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

Azure 1st Party Service can try out the Shift Left experience to initiate API design review from ADO code repo. If you are interested, may request engineering support by filling in with the form https://aka.ms/ShiftLeftSupportForm.

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. By default, Azure SDKs of all languages (.NET/Python/Java/JavaScript for both management-plane SDK and data-plane SDK, Go for management-plane SDK only ) MUST be refreshed with/after swagger of new version is published. If you prefer NOT to refresh any specific SDK language upon swagger updates in the current PR, please leave details with justification here.

Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):

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 the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.

    • 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. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For more details refer to the wiki.

  • 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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.

Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.

NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @solankisamir 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. vscswagger@microsoft.com

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 2, 2023 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️🔄Breaking Change(Cross-Version) inProgress [Detail]
    ️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There is no credential detected.
    ️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
    compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.3) new version base version
    package-preview-2023-03 package-preview-2023-03(548bf35) default(main)

    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

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

    Rule Message
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L96
    ❌ ProvisioningStateSpecifiedForLROPut 200 response schema in long running PUT operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO PUT operations response schema must have ProvisioningState specified for the 200 and 201 status codes.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L215
    ❌ ProvisioningStateSpecifiedForLROPut 201 response schema in long running PUT operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO PUT operations response schema must have ProvisioningState specified for the 200 and 201 status codes.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L215
    ❌ PutRequestResponseSchemeArm A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'Api_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'parameters[3].schema' Response Model: 'responses[200].schema'
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L215
    ❌ LroErrorContent Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L340
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L509
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L571
    ❌ RepeatedPathInfo The 'apiId' already appears in the path, please don't repeat it in the request body.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L708
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1279
    ❌ ParametersInPointGet Query parameter format should be removed. Point Get's MUST not have query parameters other than api version.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1356
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1583
    ❌ PutResponseSchemaDescription Description of 200 response code of a PUT operation MUST include term 'update'.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1742
    ❌ PutResponseSchemaDescription Description of 201 response code of a PUT operation MUST include term 'create'.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1742
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L1858
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2202
    ❌ ParametersInPointGet Query parameter format should be removed. Point Get's MUST not have query parameters other than api version.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2282
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2506
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2555
    ❌ ParametersInPointGet Query parameter format should be removed. Point Get's MUST not have query parameters other than api version.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2634
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2852
    ❌ ProvisioningStateSpecifiedForLROPut 200 response schema in long running PUT operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO PUT operations response schema must have ProvisioningState specified for the 200 and 201 status codes.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2970
    ❌ ProvisioningStateSpecifiedForLROPut 201 response schema in long running PUT operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO PUT operations response schema must have ProvisioningState specified for the 200 and 201 status codes.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L2970
    ❌ LroErrorContent Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3050
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3161
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3522
    ❌ ParametersInPointGet Query parameter expandCommentsAttachments should be removed. Point Get's MUST not have query parameters other than api version.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3600
    ❌ RepeatedPathInfo The 'apiId' already appears in the path, please don't repeat it in the request body.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3666
    ❌ PutResponseSchemaDescription Description of 201 response code of a PUT operation MUST include term 'create'.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3691
    ❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L3886
    ❌ PutResponseSchemaDescription Description of 201 response code of a PUT operation MUST include term 'create'.
    Location: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/apimapis.json#L4057
    ️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
    Rule Message
    ⚠️ CIRCULAR_REFERENCE The JSON file has a circular reference.
    readme: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md
    json: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/definitions.json
    ️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    ️❌~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
    Rule Message
    ❌ Error "\nfatal error: Failed to execute scenario: GeneratedScenario: Failed to execute step Documentation_Update: Parameter value for "If-Match" is not found in step: Documentation_Update \nError: Parameter value for "If-Match" is not found in step: Documentation_Update\n at ApiScenarioRunner.executeRestCallStep (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:196:27)\n at ApiScenarioRunner.executeStep (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:89:32)\n at ApiScenarioRunner.execute (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:74:32)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.generateCollection (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:215:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.doRun (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:166:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:108:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionGenerator.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:424:28)\n at async /opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:232:13\n at async Object.exports.cliSuppressExceptions (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/cliSuppressExceptions.js:9:28)\n at async Object.handler (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:139:5) \nError: Failed to execute step Documentation_Update: Parameter value for "If-Match" is not found in step: Documentation_Update \nError: Parameter value for "If-Match" is not found in step: Documentation_Update\n at ApiScenarioRunner.executeRestCallStep (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:196:27)\n at ApiScenarioRunner.executeStep (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:89:32)\n at ApiScenarioRunner.execute (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:74:32)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.generateCollection (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:215:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.doRun (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:166:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:108:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionGenerator.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:424:28)\n at async /opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:232:13\n at async Object.exports.cliSuppressExceptions (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/cliSuppressExceptions.js:9:28)\n at async Object.handler (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:139:5)\n at ApiScenarioRunner.executeStep (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:100:19)\n at async ApiScenarioRunner.execute (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/apiScenarioRunner.js:74:21)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.generateCollection (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:215:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.doRun (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:166:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionRunner.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:108:9)\n at async PostmanCollectionGenerator.run (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/apiScenario/postmanCollectionGenerator.js:424:28)\n at async /opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:232:13\n at async Object.exports.cliSuppressExceptions (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/cliSuppressExceptions.js:9:28)\n at async Object.handler (/opt/hostedtoolcache/node/14.21.3/x64/lib/node_modules/oav/dist/lib/commands/run-api-scenario.js:139:5),
    \n"
    ️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    ️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    ️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    ️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for ModelValidation.
    ️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
    ️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passed for PoliCheck.
    ️️✔️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).
    ️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for CadlValidation.
    ️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.
    ️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for Summary.
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 2, 2023 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

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

    ️❌SDK Breaking Change Tracking failed [Detail]

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

    ️❌ azure-sdk-for-net-track2 failed [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-python-track2 warning [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 warning [Detail]

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

    ️❌ azure-powershell failed [Detail]

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

    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 2, 2023 •
    edited
    Loading

    Generated ApiView

    Language Package Name ApiView Link
    Go sdk/resourcemanager/apimanagement/armapimanagement https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/9bd4ac07d6694810aaa6652deda9d3da
    JavaScript @azure/arm-apimanagement https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/00384c531a35415882440e3f6cb20e45

    @ghost ghost added the API Management label May 2, 2023
    @solankisamir solankisamir changed the title Release microsoft.api management 2023 03 01 preview Release microsoft.api management 2023 03 01 preview - NOT READY May 2, 2023
    @solankisamir solankisamir added the 2023-03-01-preview APIM 2023-03-01-preview PRs label May 2, 2023
    @azure-sdk azure-sdk mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023
    Closed
    @azure-sdk azure-sdk mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023
    Closed
    This was referenced May 2, 2023
    Closed
    Closed
    @AzureRestAPISpecReview AzureRestAPISpecReview added ARMReview CI-MissingBaseCommit new-api-version ReadyForApiTest <valid label in PR review process>add this label when swagger and service APIs are ready for test resource-manager WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels May 2, 2023
    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi, @solankisamir, For review efficiency consideration, when creating a new api version, it is required to place API specs of the base version in the first commit, and push new version updates into successive commits. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For more details refer to the wiki. Or you could onboard API spec pipeline

    @sjanamma sjanamma added the ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review label May 2, 2023
    @openapi-workflow-bot openapi-workflow-bot bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label May 2, 2023
    @azure-sdk azure-sdk mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023
    Closed
    @raych1 raych1 requested a review from zedy-wj May 4, 2023 00:18
    @zedy-wj
    Copy link
    Member

    zedy-wj commented May 5, 2023

    @raych1 - Please help review Go breaking change.
    @qiaozha - Please help review JS breaking change.

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi @solankisamir, 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.
    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.
    If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see ARM Traffic statistic.
    If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback.
    Note: To avoid breaking change, you can refer to Shift Left Solution for detecting breaking change in early phase at your service code repository.

    @solankisamir solankisamir removed the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Jun 15, 2023
    @openapi-workflow-bot openapi-workflow-bot bot added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 15, 2023
    @solankisamir solankisamir added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jun 15, 2023
    @solankisamir
    Copy link
    Member Author

    @ms-zhenhua I have resolved the issues you raised.
    For additionalproperties we will consider this for future api-versions. Can you review again?

    @mikekistler mikekistler added the Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 label Jun 15, 2023
    @ms-henglu
    Copy link
    Member

    Hi @solankisamir ,

    Would you please clarify why the following issue couldn't be fixed this time?

      "additionalProperties": true,

    additionalProperties is not allowed and boolean is only supported in 3.0:
    https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/main/docs/avoid-additional-properties.md

    Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/definitions.json:8857 in 63be757. [](commit_id = 63be757, deletion_comment = False)

    @ms-henglu ms-henglu added the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Jun 19, 2023
    @openapi-workflow-bot openapi-workflow-bot bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 19, 2023
    @solankisamir
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Hi @solankisamir ,

    Would you please clarify why the following issue couldn't be fixed this time?

      "additionalProperties": true,

    additionalProperties is not allowed and boolean is only supported in 3.0:
    https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/main/docs/avoid-additional-properties.md
    Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/definitions.json:8857 in 63be757. [](commit_id = 63be757, deletion_comment = False)

    @Mielek can you please clarify this?

    @Mielek
    Copy link
    Contributor

    Mielek commented Jun 21, 2023 •
    edited
    Loading

    Hi @solankisamir ,
    Would you please clarify why the following issue couldn't be fixed this time?

      "additionalProperties": true,

    additionalProperties is not allowed and boolean is only supported in 3.0:
    https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/main/docs/avoid-additional-properties.md
    Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2023-03-01-preview/definitions.json:8857 in 63be757. [](commit_id = 63be757, deletion_comment = False)

    @Mielek can you please clarify this?

    Hello @ms-henglu and @solankisamir

    We want to leave an open ended contract for the values of tracing. We made a conscious decision about that.

    Shortexplanation. Traces are tight to policy documents used in APIM. Policy documents contain policies and expressions. Policies can produce part of the traces. Expressions (customer defined scripts) can produce traces. Every document can have different set of policies and expressions. If we would define the structure of trace then:

    1. Every modification, improvement or addition of traces would require an update in ARM spec. We treat trace as an event log. We do not want to block the addition of new log entries because of api-version. We as well do not see a point in filtering traces to remove the elements which where not present in the api-version.
    2. The trace structure can be much different for every policy document. It happens because customer will use different set of policies, policies in different order and customer can add trace elements with unknow for us structure through expression.
    3. It is a debug functionality. Customer, when it faces some issues in policy documents, will produce a trace. The trace will be checked manually to find any issues. We do not believe that we or customers will be making tooling around that functionality.

    I hope it helps you to understand why we want to have an open ended contract here. Let me know if you have more questions around it.

    @solankisamir
    Copy link
    Member Author

    @VitaliyKurokhtin fyi

    @ms-henglu ms-henglu added the ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review label Jun 22, 2023
    @openapi-workflow-bot openapi-workflow-bot bot removed the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Jun 22, 2023
    @ms-henglu
    Copy link
    Member

    Hi @Mielek ,

    Thanks for the clarification, I've signed off this PR.

    @tomkerkhove tomkerkhove requested a review from ms-zhenhua June 22, 2023 09:20
    @solankisamir
    Copy link
    Member Author

    @zedy-wj can you merge this when ready? We want to release this spec as soon as possible

    @JackTn
    Copy link
    Member

    JackTn commented Jun 25, 2023

    @raych1 - Please help review Go breaking change. @qiaozha - Please help review JS breaking change.

    @raych1 @qiaozha take a look on this

    @zedy-wj zedy-wj added the Approved-OkToMerge <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee approve to merge the updates label Jun 25, 2023
    @live1206 live1206 merged commit 1d9003a into main Jun 25, 2023
    @live1206 live1206 deleted the release-Microsoft.ApiManagement-2023-03-01-preview branch June 25, 2023 08:36
    This was referenced Jun 25, 2023
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    harryli0108 pushed a commit to harryli0108/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2023
    @solankisamir @tomkerkhove
    @harunrst @Mielek @quanterion @ms-rkolesnikov @harryli0108
    Release microsoft.api management 2023 03 01 preview (Azure#23792)
    feb9f33 
    * Adds base for updating Microsoft.ApiManagement from version preview/2022-09-01-preview to version 2023-03-01-preview

* Updates readme

* Updates API version in new specs and examples

* feat(apim): Provide capability to use custom hostname for Configuration API v2 (Azure#23785)

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* feat(rp): Added flags to enable/disable portals (Azure#23799)

* feat(rp): Added flags to enable/disable portals

* update default

* feat(apim): Provide capability to disable legacy configuration API  (Azure#23786)

* feat(apim): Provide capability to disable legacy configuration API

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* Update sample

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* Fix type definition

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* Switch to enum

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* Update samples

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>

* feat(apim): Add new tracing API (Azure#23800)

* Add new tracing api

* Remove TODOs descriptions

* Improve descriptions

* Fix dot

* Add missing examples

* prettier fixes

* Fix model and semantic problems

* Remove get prefix in post operations

* Use list prefix

* Fix PR comments

* feat(apim): Add ability to create and update new OData api (Azure#23849)

* Add odata api definitions

* add api usage example

* fix file reference

* address comments

---------

Co-authored-by: rkolesnikov <rkolesnikov@microsoft.com>

* migration contract (Azure#23983)

* 2023 03 cred scan fix - Examples Only (Azure#24357)

* remove-sas-signature

* update example

* 2023-03-01-preview arm review feedback (Azure#24404)

* move to v5 subscription contract

* move to v5 for rg and api-version

* cred scan

* default is true

* uuid in examples

* change from boolean to enums

* fix default value

---------

Signed-off-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Harun Reşit <harun5hy@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Rafał Mielowski <rmielowski@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Roman Kolesnikov <Rem.Kolomna@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: rkolesnikov <rkolesnikov@microsoft.com>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers

    @zedy-wj zedy-wj zedy-wj approved these changes

    @ms-zhenhua ms-zhenhua Awaiting requested review from ms-zhenhua

    Assignees

    @live1206 live1206

    @zedy-wj zedy-wj

    Labels
    2023-03-01-preview APIM 2023-03-01-preview PRs API Management Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 Approved-OkToMerge <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee approve to merge the updates Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go Approve the breaking change tracking for azure-sdk-for-go Approved-SdkBreakingChange-JavaScript ARMReview ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review BreakingChangeReviewRequired <valid label in PR review process>add this label when breaking change review is required CI-BreakingChange-Go CI-BreakingChange-JavaScript CI-MissingBaseCommit new-api-version ReadyForApiTest <valid label in PR review process>add this label when swagger and service APIs are ready for test resource-manager
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.