[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.ResourceGraph to add version preview/2020-04-01-preview #11070
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
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Since operation 'ResourceChanges' response has model definition 'array', 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. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourcechanges.json#L40 |
|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: resultFormat New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L118 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: fetchPropertyChanges New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourcechanges.json#L157 |
|
| 'request' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L45 |
|
| 'ResourcesHistoryRequest' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L80 |
|
| 'subscriptions' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L83 |
|
| 'query' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L90 |
|
| 'options' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L93 |
|
| 'managementGroupId' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L96 |
|
| 'ResourcesHistoryRequestOptions' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.ResourceGraph/preview/2020-04-01-preview/resourceshistory.json#L101 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-go
|
azure-sdk-for-js
|
Azure CLI Extension Generation
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
azure-sdk-for-java
|
azure-sdk-for-python
|
azure-sdk-for-python-track2
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
azure-sdk-for-net
|
azure-resource-manager-schemas
|
Trenton Generation
|
|
@allenjzhang |
allenjzhang
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
allenjzhang
reviewed
Oct 11, 2020
| @@ -267,6 +267,16 @@ | |||
| "readOnly": true, | |||
| "description": "Azure resource name. This is GUID value. The display name should be assigned within properties field." | |||
| }, | |||
| "subscriptionId": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not understand the change here. This "Resource" definition was more or less aligned with standard "TrackedResource" definition. But now you are adding subscription ID and resource group here, it is messing up this base definition. I would suggest this to go on to the specific query definition.
Also in terms of the name GraphQueryResource, if feels more like XXXQuery rather a XXXResource. Anyway, I guess that boat has sailed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually you are correct.. We are returning extra fields in the RP. Let me revert this change and fix our RP side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reverted changes for subscriptionId/resourceGroup. Also fixed a casing issue for etag field.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
allenjzhang
reviewed
Oct 20, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you indicate whether there are changes to resourcechanges.json OR a simple restructure of the swagger with no changes?
I understand this is not new. So please treat the following comment as guidelines as we don't want to introduce breaking changes. But nevertheless, these guidelines should be aware of and strive to fix. Let's evaluate the impact on SDK breaking changes to see if we can make these changes. @akning-ms and @markcowl for FYI.
| "/providers/Microsoft.ResourceGraph/resourceChanges": { | ||
| "post": { | ||
| "description": "List changes to a resource for a given time interval.", | ||
| "operationId": "ResourceChanges", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OperationId should be in Noun_Verb format. Suggest ResourceChanges_List. If you have/plan additional List at different scope either now or later, you could add a ByXXX suffix here. Such as ResourceChanges_ListByTenant as this is across all subs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the suggestions. For now we'd like to keep it as-is, but we'll definitely consider revisiting the operationId in future releases.
| }, | ||
| "paths": { | ||
| "/providers/Microsoft.ResourceGraph/resourceChanges": { | ||
| "post": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feels this can be supported with GET particularly you have $top, $skip which is typical of query string parameters. But I will leave ARM reviewer to chime in here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately no because GET doesn't allow a request body. (There's a "body" parameter below.)
In reply to: 508220282 [](ancestors = 508220282)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well technically speaking some of the parameters in the request body could probably be moved to query string, but I'm not going to insist on that given that the rest of the RP is modeled using POST.
In reply to: 552319239 [](ancestors = 552319239,508220282)
|
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @Yobretaw, 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. |
|
Hi @Yobretaw, 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. |
|
Hi @Yobretaw, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
This reverts commit 5bfd7fb.
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2021
majastrz
added
ARMSignedOff
|
@allenjzhang Both BreakingChange and ARM API Reviewer have signed off. I took a look into LintDiff but errors there are expected. Could you please take a look? |
This was referenced Jan 11, 2021
This was referenced Jan 24, 2021
Merged
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
…sion preview/2020-04-01-preview (Azure#11070) * Add missing subscriptionId and resourceGroup * Update 2020-04-01-preview * Split 2020-04-01-preview * Reverting changes for subscriptionId/resourceGroup; Fix casing for etag field. * Adding missing ResourcesHistory API to swagger * Fix API definition; Add an example * Fix multiple issues 1) Rename PropertyChangeType to ChangeType; 2) Add resourceId ResourceChangeData; 3) Add snapshotId to ResourceSnapshotData; 4) Fix model name in resourceshistory.json * Fix linter/model issues * Fix etag casing more places * Fix ErrorResponse modeling in resourcechanges.json and resourcehistory.json * Add default response for Operations API * Revert renaming of PropertyChangeType * Add changeType to swagger * Revert "Add changeType to swagger" This reverts commit 5bfd7fb. * Fix swagger for resourcesHistory Co-authored-by: Youke Shen <yoshen@microsoft.com>
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 PR
/partner/microsoft.resourcegraph/resourcesHistoryeTagtoetagas mentioned in Some issues in resource graph swaggers -- (related to https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/issues/9136) #9466resourceIdfield toResourceChangeDatamodel, and added missingsnapshotIdfield toResourceSnapshotDatamodelThis is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.