[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Security to add version stable/2020-01-01 #13078
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
…te action (instead of synchronous operation it is an asynchronous one) - so adding the operationResults path
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/serverVulnerabilityAssessments.json#L292:11 |
️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for LintDiff.
️⚠️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 |
️️✔️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.
️❌[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 6 Errors, 33 Warnings failed [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"Duplicate Schema named ExternalSecuritySolutionKind -- type: undefined => "string", properties: "kind":"description":"The kind of the external solution", "$ref":"#/components/schemas/ExternalSecuritySolutionKind" =>, enum: undefined => ["CEF", "ATA", "AAD"], x-ms-enum: undefined => "name":"ExternalSecuritySolutionKind", "modelAsString":true, "values":["value":"CEF", "value":"ATA", "value":"AAD"] ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"Duplicate Schema named AadConnectivityState -- type: undefined => "string", properties: "connectivityState":"$ref":"#/components/schemas/AadConnectivityState" =>, title: undefined => "The connectivity state of the external AAD solution ", enum: undefined => ["Discovered", "NotLicensed", "Connected"], x-ms-enum: undefined => "name":"AadConnectivityState", "modelAsString":true, "values":["value":"Discovered", "value":"NotLicensed", "value":"Connected"] ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"Error: Plugin prechecker reported failure." |
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2020-01-only", "details":"Duplicate Schema named ExternalSecuritySolutionKind -- type: undefined => "string", properties: "kind":"description":"The kind of the external solution", "$ref":"#/components/schemas/ExternalSecuritySolutionKind" =>, enum: undefined => ["CEF", "ATA", "AAD"], x-ms-enum: undefined => "name":"ExternalSecuritySolutionKind", "modelAsString":true, "values":["value":"CEF", "value":"ATA", "value":"AAD"] ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2020-01-only", "details":"Duplicate Schema named AadConnectivityState -- type: undefined => "string", properties: "connectivityState":"$ref":"#/components/schemas/AadConnectivityState" =>, title: undefined => "The connectivity state of the external AAD solution ", enum: undefined => ["Discovered", "NotLicensed", "Connected"], x-ms-enum: undefined => "name":"AadConnectivityState", "modelAsString":true, "values":["value":"Discovered", "value":"NotLicensed", "value":"Connected"] ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2020-01-only", "details":"Error: Plugin prechecker reported failure." |
| "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"The schema 'ComplianceResultList' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"The schema 'PricingList' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"The schema 'AdvancedThreatProtectionProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"The schema 'TagsResource' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
|
Hi, @Nomigori96MS 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 Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @Nomigori96MS, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
In the Window Period to fix mismatches between swagger and service, when PR is labelled with “FixS360”, breaking change can be approved by PR assignee; the Azure Breaking Change Board is no longer required to approve the PR. Please ensure to clarify what s360 action items to be solved, and @ mention PR assignee for awareness. Please check this wiki Window to Fix Broken for more details. |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
Hi @Nomigori96MS, 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. |
|
NewApiVersionRequired reason: |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-BreakingChange-Python
CI-BreakingChange-Go
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
…hronous status codes to the delete as well
…ed twice under the same tag (the commented out version and a newer preview api-version) - which caused errors like: "Duplicate Operation '{Get/List}' detected"
|
Fixing the following issue: #12308 |
ruowan
reviewed
Feb 22, 2021
| - Microsoft.Security/stable/2019-08-01/iotAlerts.json | ||
| - Microsoft.Security/stable/2019-08-01/iotRecommendationTypes.json | ||
| - Microsoft.Security/stable/2019-08-01/iotRecommendations.json | ||
| #- Microsoft.Security/stable/2019-08-01/iotAlertTypes.json |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't want to entirely delete it because it belongs to a completely different team, so I didn't want to make a terminal change as deleting their old versions..
ruowan
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2021
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2021
…this resource type does not need to be declared in the Swagger (verified in ARM office hours)
ruowan
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2021
This was referenced Feb 26, 2021
Closed
Closed
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
…stable/2020-01-01 (Azure#13078) * fixing serverVulnerabilityAssessments swagger correctness in the delete action (instead of synchronous operation it is an asynchronous one) - so adding the operationResults path * fix the examples path * updates to the delete and operationResults responses and status codes * removing the long-running-operation from the put, and adding the synchronous status codes to the delete as well * fixing unconnected validation errors in SDK Track2 Validation * fixing SDK Track2 Validation errors - the same specifications were used twice under the same tag (the commented out version and a newer preview api-version) - which caused errors like: "Duplicate Operation '{Get/List}' detected" * Revert "fixing SDK Track2 Validation errors - the same specifications were used twice under the same tag (the commented out version and a newer preview api-version) - which caused errors like: "Duplicate Operation '{Get/List}' detected"" This reverts commit 12baa06. * Revert "fixing unconnected validation errors in SDK Track2 Validation" This reverts commit 056ae33. * removing the operationResults path and example from the swagger - as this resource type does not need to be declared in the Swagger (verified in ARM office hours)
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
Please ensure to add changelog with 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
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.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API 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.