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.

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

Creating new API version for ADF #3270

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Jun 22, 2018
Merged

Creating new API version for ADF #3270

merged 17 commits into from
Jun 22, 2018

Conversation

hvermis
Copy link
Contributor

@hvermis hvermis commented Jun 19, 2018

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

Sorry, something went wrong.

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 19, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-ruby

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-python

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-java#2136

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#2008

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-node

@hvermis hvermis assigned anuchandy and unassigned anuchandy Jun 20, 2018
"/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataFactory/factories/{factoryName}/queryPipelineRuns": {
"post": {
"operationId": "PipelineRuns_QueryByFactory",
"x-ms-examples": {
Copy link
Member

@anuchandy anuchandy Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we name this operationId as PipelineRuns_ListByFactory given this operation is for listing pipe-line -runs List<PipelineRun> under a factory ? trying to be consistent with general patterns. We even have a linter rule for this.

#WontFix

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After discussing with my team leaving as Query #Resolved

},
"/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataFactory/factories/{factoryName}/pipelineruns/{runId}/queryActivityruns": {
"post": {
"operationId": "ActivityRuns_QueryByPipelineRun",
Copy link
Member

@anuchandy anuchandy Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we name this operationId as ActivityRuns_ListByPipelineRun given this operation is for listing activity-runs List<ActivityRun> under a pieline run? #WontFix

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After discussing with my team leaving as Query #WontFix

{
"$ref": "#/parameters/runId"
},

Copy link
Member

@anuchandy anuchandy Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as previous comment, consider using the operation id TriggerRuns_ListByFactory to be consistent with the pattern we established in SDKs #WontFix

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After discussing with my team leaving as Query #Resolved

{
"$ref": "#/parameters/runId"
},

Copy link
Member

@anuchandy anuchandy Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

using uuid (guid) is considered as ARM violation - refer this. I've seen other services with identity support uses string instead of uuid. Here is an example. But before making that change, let's see what ARM is recommending here. Since this is a new api-version Gaurav from ARM will be taking a look.
#WontFix

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will change it to string. Just for information, why are GUIDs not recommended? #WontFix

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just posted about this on slack channel for swagger - since these are for tenantId and principalId properties and not resource names, the format here is fine. In fact it gives an additional type validation on client side, so I will leave these two as GUIDs and add a linter exception. #Resolved

{
"$ref": "#/parameters/runId"
},

Copy link
Member

@anuchandy anuchandy Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Annotate this with x-ms-enum like:

"x-ms-enum": {
   "name": "<name-for-enum-type>",
   "modelAsString": false | true
}

Do this for other enums as well. #Resolved

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Which one is this comment referring to? Hard to see. #Resolved

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've searched through the whole file - the only ones that don't have x-ms-enum are the ones that contain the type name. These translate into a const string which should be intentional.
All others are modeled as enums. #Resolved

@anuchandy anuchandy added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 20, 2018
@anuchandy anuchandy requested a review from ravbhatnagar June 20, 2018 18:52
@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

anuchandy commented Jun 20, 2018

Just learned from @hvermis that this was already approved by ARM in private repo hence removing the ARM specific label and review request. #Resolved

@anuchandy anuchandy removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 20, 2018
@anuchandy anuchandy removed the request for review from ravbhatnagar June 20, 2018 20:32
@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

anuchandy commented Jun 20, 2018

Sync-ed with Hermine. There are some changes since last arm review (mainly query part was reviewed last time), hence requesting arm review. #Resolved

@anuchandy anuchandy requested a review from ravbhatnagar June 20, 2018 20:50
@anuchandy anuchandy added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 20, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just one note about upgrade API. Others we had already reviewed and discussed.

}
}
},
"/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataFactory/factories/{factoryName}/upgrade": {
Copy link
Contributor

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Upgrade should be modeled as a PUT. @hvermis - I dont recall we discussing this in our conversation. #Resolved

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvermis hvermis Jun 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed from swagger for now as per offline discussion. #Resolved

@ravbhatnagar
Copy link
Contributor

Signing off!

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar 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 Jun 22, 2018
@anuchandy anuchandy merged commit 37ca9e7 into Azure:master Jun 22, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants