[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Security to add version stable/2024-01-01 #24625
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
Swagger Validation Report
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| types.json | 1.0(3d1d070) | 1.0(main) |
️❌Breaking Change(Cross-Version): 3 Errors, 7 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| pricings.json | 2024-01-01(3d1d070) | 2023-01-01(main) |
| pricings.json | 2024-01-01(3d1d070) | 2017-08-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L37:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings/{pricingName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L73:5 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L488:3 Old: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L348:3 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L37:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L76:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings/{pricingName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L118:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings/{pricingName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L197:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceGroupName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L488:3 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L352:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L488:3 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L352:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'nextLink' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L236:7 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L289:7 |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️❌LintDiff: 4 Errors, 8 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.6) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-composite-v3 | package-composite-v3(3d1d070) | package-composite-v3(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
|
The resource name parameter 'pricingName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L37 |
RPC-Uri-V1-05 |
|
The put or patch operation does not have a request body defined. This is not allowed. Please specify a request body for this operation. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L110 |
RPC-Put-V1-28, RPC-Patch-V1-12 |
|
x-ms-pageable extension must be specified for LIST APIs.Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L184 |
RPC-Get-V1-13 |
|
Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L215 |
|
| The response of operation:'Pricings_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L38 |
||
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L64 |
||
| The response of operation:'Pricings_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L90 |
||
| 'PUT' operation 'Pricings_Update' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L109 |
||
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L110 |
||
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L156 |
||
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Pricings_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L184 |
||
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L201 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Definitions must not have properties named additionalProperties except for user defined tags or predefined references. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L240 |
|
Properties with type:object that don't reference a model definition are not allowed. ARM doesn't allow generic type definitions as this leads to bad customer experience. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L240 |
|
Definitions must not have properties named additionalProperties except for user defined tags or predefined references. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L250 |
|
Properties with type:object that don't reference a model definition are not allowed. ARM doesn't allow generic type definitions as this leads to bad customer experience. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L250 |
|
Definitions must not have properties named additionalProperties except for user defined tags or predefined references. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L384 |
|
Properties with type:object that don't reference a model definition are not allowed. ARM doesn't allow generic type definitions as this leads to bad customer experience. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L384 |
|
Definitions must not have properties named additionalProperties except for user defined tags or predefined references. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L438 |
|
Properties with type:object that don't reference a model definition are not allowed. ARM doesn't allow generic type definitions as this leads to bad customer experience. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L438 |
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2024-01-01/pricings.json#L390 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/security/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/security/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-composite-v3 |
️❌SwaggerAPIView: 0 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
️️✔️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.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
️️✔️Automated merging requirements met succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
|
Hi, @bamus1166 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. vscswagger@microsoft.com |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
|
/azp run unifiedPipeline |
|
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
the
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
|
Hi @bamus1166! The automation detected breaking changes in this pull request. As a result, it added the |
bamus1166
changed the title
bamus1166
removed
the
ARMSignedOff
kerend
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2023
…into bamus1166-security-Microsoft.Security-2023-08-01-preview
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
bamus1166
changed the title
kerend
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2023
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 3 pipeline(s). |
visingla-ms
added
Approved-LintDiff
ARMSignedOff
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
visingla-ms
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2023
…into bamus1166-security-Microsoft.Security-2023-08-01-preview
|
please fix errors in https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/24625/checks?check_run_id=19520849172, then re-add the MergeRequested label. Thanks. |
|
@lirenhe can you force merge this PR as the Go failure is a known issue in m4? |
lirenhe
deleted the
bamus1166-security-Microsoft.Security-2023-08-01-preview
branch
|
OK, merged. |
arifibrahim4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2024
…stable/2024-01-01 (#24625) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Security from version stable/2023-01-01 to version 2023-08-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Granular Pricing 2023-08-01-preview first commit * .... * Fixed errors 1 * fixed errors 2 * ...... * fixed errors 3 * fixed errors 4 * Fixed errors 5 * ........ * Fixed comments 1 * ....... * Fixing errors 7 * .................... * ............. * fixing errors 8 * .......... * Fixed pr comments * .......... * ...... * ......... * ..... * .......... * Fixed comments on PR * ......... * updated enums and field names * fixed errors * Updated field names... * updated field names * ..... * Added next token * updated descriptions * Aligned LIST API * ...... * .... * removed list flag and added resourcesCoverageStatus * updated resourcesCoverageStatus description * ..... * ................. * ............. * ..................... * ........... * ......... * .......... * ............... * fixing errors * .......... * Added suppressions * ............ * ........................... * suppressing TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription * ........... * .......... * Updated Examples * fixed some text issues * Re-added ARC support * ... * ran prettifier * Moved the whole folder to stable/2024-01-01 * Fixed file paths * Aligned examples * ... * ...... * Fixed prittier issue * ...
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.
ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request
Purpose of this PR
What's the purpose of this PR? Check all that apply. This is mandatory!
Due diligence checklist
To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:
ARM resource provider contract and
REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
I understand this is required before I can request review from an ARM API Review board.
ARM API changes review
ARMReviewlabel.ARMReviewlabel, if appropriate.If this happens, proceed according to guidance given in GitHub comments also added by the automation.
Breaking change review
If you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy,
follow the process outlined in the High-level Breaking Change Process doc.
Getting help
and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.