Add missing resources 2021 10 01 #16666
Merged
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
added 11 commits
November 4, 2021 15:37
…lateById example.
|
Hi, @anat-gilenson 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 |
|
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @anat-gilenson your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Guid used in model definition 'UserInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: resource-manager/common/2.0/types.json#L60 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 26 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/operations.json#L37 |
| Since operation 'ThreatIntelligenceIndicator_QueryIndicators' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', 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. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L311 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L1017 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'ThreatIntelligenceIndicatorMetrics_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L352 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'SentinelOnboardingStates_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/OnboardingStates.json#L178 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'comments' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Incidents.json#L945 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Incidents.json#L791 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'watchlistItems' with immediate parent 'Watchlist', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Watchlists.json#L621 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IncidentOwnerInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Incidents.json#L1120 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SubmissionMailEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L2123 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SecurityGroupEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L2084 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailMessageEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L1182 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailboxEntityProperties' for property 'externalDirectoryObjectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L961 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IoTDeviceEntityProperties' for property 'iotSecurityAgentId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L796 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'AccountEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L69 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'ClientInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: resource-manager/common/2.0/types.json#L35 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isVolumeAnomaly Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L1045 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L606 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: stable/2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json#L59 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: defanged Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L678 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: revoked Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L710 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: includeDisabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L887 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDeleted Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Watchlists.json#L550 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDeleted Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Watchlists.json#L652 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: customerManagedKey Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/OnboardingStates.json#L225 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/AlertRules.json#L823 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 77 Errors, 319 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.1)
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json compared with base:stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json compared with base:preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/DataConnectors.json compared with base:stable/2020-01-01/DataConnectors.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Incidents.json compared with base:stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Incidents.json compared with base:preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json compared with base:stable/2021-04-01/ThreatIntelligence.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/ThreatIntelligence.json compared with base:preview/2019-01-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Watchlists.json compared with base:stable/2021-04-01/Watchlists.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/Watchlists.json compared with base:preview/2021-03-01-preview/Watchlists.json
Only 26 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
Only 26 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L37:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks/{bookmarkId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L85:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks/{bookmarkId}/relations' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L234:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks/{bookmarkId}/expand' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L298:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks/{bookmarkId}/relations/{relationName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L349:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L37:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L97:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/createTeam' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L246:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/alerts' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L297:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/bookmarks' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L345:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/comments' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L393:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/comments/{incidentCommentId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L457:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/entities' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L615:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/relations' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L663:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/{operationalInsightsResourceProvider}/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/relations/{relationName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L727:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'BookmarkExpandParameters' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'IncidentSeverity' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'EntityInnerKind' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'EventGroupingAggregationKind' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'EventGroupingSettings' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'AlertRuleTriggerOperator' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'AlertSeverity' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'ScheduledAlertRuleTemplate' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'MicrosoftSecurityIncidentCreationAlertRuleTemplate' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'MicrosoftSecurityIncidentCreationAlertRuleProperties' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'ThreatIntelligenceAlertRuleTemplate' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/Bookmarks.json#L223:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L538:3 |
️🔄SDK Track2 Validation inProgress [Detail]
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @anat-gilenson, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
mentat9
reviewed
Nov 5, 2021
| "definitions": { | ||
| "IncidentSeverityEnum": { | ||
| "description": "The severity of the incident", | ||
| "enum": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You removed the Critical enum value from this definition in previous API version. This is a breaking change and requires signoff from breaking change board. I've added the BreakingChangeReviewRequired label to your PR. Look in the comments for instructions on how to get the review.
If this was a mistake, add back the Critical enum value, and I will remove the breaking change label and sign off for ARM (there were no other REST changes).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the review @mentat9.
Critical isn't a real Incident severity and having it in the enum was a mistake already corrected and approved in the 2020-01-01 version (https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/15761/files). This branch was generated with the OpenAPI hub before the correction so it includes the mistake.
I applied a request to the breaking change board to review this PR.
|
Hi @anat-gilenson, 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. |
|
This PR was almost entirely a big refactoring (aside from one enum I commented). This made ARM review very difficult. Most of the changes don't need an API version change or ARM review. since refactoring the files doesn't modify the REST APIs. In future it will be very helpful to you and the ARM reviewers to do this kind of change in two separate PRs:
Following this approach will allow our automation to work properly and make the ARM review job trivial which help minimize the time it takes to complete your PR. |
laithhisham
suggested changes
Nov 7, 2021
...SecurityInsights/stable/2021-10-01/examples/alertRuleTemplates/GetAlertRuleTemplateById.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@mentat9 Sorry for making it difficult to review. Next time I'll do the refactoring in a separate PR. Please note that much of the changes that might seem as refactoring included change of models (different parameter pattern values etc..). I used the common-type definitions and parameters instead of defining our own. I couldn't make these changes in a previous version as it would be considered breaking change. |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
Makes sense, thanks. |
mentat9
added
ARMSignedOff
qiaozha
reviewed
Nov 9, 2021
| @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ These are the global settings for the SecurityInsights API. | |||
|
|
|||
| ``` yaml | |||
| openapi-type: arm | |||
| tag: package-2021-10 | |||
| tag: package-2020-01 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we make this change ? I don't think it's allowed to downgrade the tag
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@qiaozha I didn't downgrade, I just didn't change the way it's in main. OpenAPIHub automatically changes the default tag but I don't want to change it. I upgraded the basic tag it in another preview version dev branch and I don't want any conflicts when I try to merge this branch to main.
Readme in main:
Readme in 2021-09-01-preview dev branch:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it, so you just chenge it back to be consistent with the main branch.
qiaozha
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2021
laithhisham
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2021
qiaozha
merged commit 1bac88f
into
Azure:dev-securityinsights-Microsoft.SecurityInsights-2021-10-01
25 tasks
dw511214992
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2022
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsights from version stable/2021-04-01 to version 2021-10-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Add AlertRules to microsoft.security insights 2021 10 01 (#15657) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsight's AlertRules from version stable/2020-01-01 to version 2021-10-01 * Updates API version in AlertRules specs and examples * Use common types in AlertRules.json and remove redundant SecurityInsights * Add AlertRules to readme * Copy action examples for alert rules * Add type:object where missing * Align CloudError with rest of the resources in this version * Update readme Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Use newest common types to align with rest of Azure (#16130) * Use newest common types to align with rest of Azure * Use ErrorResponse instead of CloudError in operations Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Add AlertRules Stable version to 2021-10-01 (#16268) * Add AlertRules Stable version to 2021-10-01 * Fix missing alignment in common types * prettier fixes * move tactics and severity to common * fix common types file extension * more prettier fixes * Add template version field * prettier * added version to required fields * dummy change to trigger checks again * Add onboarding states to new stable version (#16290) * Add onboarding states to new stable version * Update readme.md * cr fix - remove unused params * Add missing resources 2021 10 01 (#16666) * Add missing resources and examples from 2020-01-01 * Update version in added resources and examples * Use existing common types * Remove unnesessary SecurityInsights.json * Update readme * Use sentinel common types in Incidents and Watchlist * Extract and common IncidentInfo and IncidentSeverity * Extract EntityTypes * Correct double allOf in EntityTypes * update readme * Remove eventGroupingSettings and entityMappings from GetAlertRuleTemplateById example. * rename operations.json Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Fix analytics templates model (#16689) * add missing properties to scheduled template * prettier fixes * restore templates example after merge * fix templates example after merge and run prettier * Use CloudError instead of ErrorResponse to align with preview versions and our back-end. (#17472) * Automation - Stable Version (#17491) * First * readMe * cloudError * CloudError * schema * prettier * Fix * test * fix identifier * fix description * fix lable * fix lable * ownerInfo * Fix * types * conditionMaxLength Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Done (#17728) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Correct 2021 10 01 (#17830) * Remove OperationalInsightsResourceProvider parameter in ThreatIntelligence * Remove OperationalInsightProviderParameter from Watchlist * Align stable operation names with preview * Add missing disciminator property in ThreatIntelligence * Done (#17844) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Align enum names with preview (#17831) * Fix 2021 10 01 validation errors (#17937) * Add x-ms-identifiers to all arrays * Add operations_list example * Add x-ms-identifier in all arrays * Run prettier * Fix spelling error * Add isDataAction to operation schema (#18018) Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: laithhisham <49263932+laithhisham@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: royrein <37300636+royrein@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Arthur Ning <57385816+akning-ms@users.noreply.github.com>
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2022
) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsights from version stable/2021-04-01 to version 2021-10-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Add AlertRules to microsoft.security insights 2021 10 01 (Azure#15657) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsight's AlertRules from version stable/2020-01-01 to version 2021-10-01 * Updates API version in AlertRules specs and examples * Use common types in AlertRules.json and remove redundant SecurityInsights * Add AlertRules to readme * Copy action examples for alert rules * Add type:object where missing * Align CloudError with rest of the resources in this version * Update readme Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Use newest common types to align with rest of Azure (Azure#16130) * Use newest common types to align with rest of Azure * Use ErrorResponse instead of CloudError in operations Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Add AlertRules Stable version to 2021-10-01 (Azure#16268) * Add AlertRules Stable version to 2021-10-01 * Fix missing alignment in common types * prettier fixes * move tactics and severity to common * fix common types file extension * more prettier fixes * Add template version field * prettier * added version to required fields * dummy change to trigger checks again * Add onboarding states to new stable version (Azure#16290) * Add onboarding states to new stable version * Update readme.md * cr fix - remove unused params * Add missing resources 2021 10 01 (Azure#16666) * Add missing resources and examples from 2020-01-01 * Update version in added resources and examples * Use existing common types * Remove unnesessary SecurityInsights.json * Update readme * Use sentinel common types in Incidents and Watchlist * Extract and common IncidentInfo and IncidentSeverity * Extract EntityTypes * Correct double allOf in EntityTypes * update readme * Remove eventGroupingSettings and entityMappings from GetAlertRuleTemplateById example. * rename operations.json Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> * Fix analytics templates model (Azure#16689) * add missing properties to scheduled template * prettier fixes * restore templates example after merge * fix templates example after merge and run prettier * Use CloudError instead of ErrorResponse to align with preview versions and our back-end. (Azure#17472) * Automation - Stable Version (Azure#17491) * First * readMe * cloudError * CloudError * schema * prettier * Fix * test * fix identifier * fix description * fix lable * fix lable * ownerInfo * Fix * types * conditionMaxLength Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Done (Azure#17728) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Correct 2021 10 01 (Azure#17830) * Remove OperationalInsightsResourceProvider parameter in ThreatIntelligence * Remove OperationalInsightProviderParameter from Watchlist * Align stable operation names with preview * Add missing disciminator property in ThreatIntelligence * Done (Azure#17844) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> * Align enum names with preview (Azure#17831) * Fix 2021 10 01 validation errors (Azure#17937) * Add x-ms-identifiers to all arrays * Add operations_list example * Add x-ms-identifier in all arrays * Run prettier * Fix spelling error * Add isDataAction to operation schema (Azure#18018) Co-authored-by: Anat Gilenson <anatgilenson@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: laithhisham <49263932+laithhisham@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: royrein <37300636+royrein@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <roreinho@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Arthur Ning <57385816+akning-ms@users.noreply.github.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.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for 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
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 label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change 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.