Dev/adburch/2022 01 01 #17034
Merged
Dev/adburch/2022 01 01 #17034
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
|
Hi, @adburch 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. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'StorageTargetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'StorageTarget' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1269 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'StorageTargetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'StorageTarget' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1104 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'StorageTargetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'StorageTarget' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1159 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'StorageTargetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'StorageTarget' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1214 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1355 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: rotationToLatestKeyVersionEnabled Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1754 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: extendedGroups Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1860 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: encryptLdapConnection Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1895 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: requireValidCertificate Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1899 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: autoDownloadCertificate Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1903 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: suid Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L1998 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: submountAccess Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L2002 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: rootSquash Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L2006 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: toBeExportedForShoebox Location: Microsoft.StorageCache/stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json#L2718 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️⚠️Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 52 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json compared with base:stable/2021-09-01/storagecache.json
- current:stable/2022-01-01/storagecache.json compared with base:preview/2019-08-01-preview/storagecache.json
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Converting to draft to avoid merging prematurely, but we are ready for review. |
|
The breaking change tracking notice are for an old version - we're not changing anything in those old versions. |
adburch
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi @adburch , the "API Readiness Check" failed. |
|
@adburch - Changes LGTM. Signed off from ARM side. |
RamyasreeChakka
added
ARMSignedOff
@changlong-liu , the service deployment will be done over the next two weeks. We are just getting approval so that the new api-version can be merged once we are completely ready. |
|
Hi @adburch, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
adburch
force-pushed
the
dev/adburch/2022-01-01
branch
from
a6a3e64
to
03e74b8
Compare
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
CI-BreakingChange-Go-V2
and removed
CI-BreakingChange-Go
labels
adburch
force-pushed
the
dev/adburch/2022-01-01
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ba2b1fd
to
7e8faa9
Compare
adburch
force-pushed
the
dev/adburch/2022-01-01
branch
from
7e8faa9
to
41cfea9
Compare
|
Hi @changlong-liu, the Swagger SDK Breaking Change Tracking failure is only for API version 2020-03-01, which I have not edited in this PR. Can we ignore that particular check? |
This was referenced Mar 10, 2022
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2022
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2022
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.StorageCache from version stable/2021-09-01 to version 2022-01-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Updates for 2022-01-01 stable version. * Fix prettier errors. * Add usages API Co-authored-by: Adam Burch <adburch@ntdev.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.
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:
[X ] 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.
-[X ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits.
[X ] 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.