Adding new API version "2022-03-01" from "2021-12-01-preview" #18260
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, @mayankagg9722 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. vscswagger@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 |
|---|---|
|
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesRequestResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3549 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesResponseResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3580 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupRecoveryPointResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3841 |
|
The schema 'BackupInstanceResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L4155 |
|
The schema 'BackupVaultResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L4310 |
|
The schema 'BaseBackupPolicyResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L4370 |
|
The schema 'CloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L4570 |
|
The schema 'Error' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L5038 |
|
The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L5076 |
|
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L5298 |
|
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L5346 |
|
The parameters:operationId,location should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L64 |
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'BackupInstances' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L1375 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'BackupInstances' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L1993 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'ResourceGuards' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2774 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'ResourceGuards' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3089 |
|
| Since operation 'BackupVaults_GetInSubscription' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L27 |
|
| Since operation 'BackupVaults_GetInResourceGroup' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L289 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetResourcesInSubscription' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2424 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetResourcesInResourceGroup' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2466 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDisableSoftDeleteRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2722 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDeleteResourceGuardProxyRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2774 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetBackupSecurityPINRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2826 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDeleteProtectedItemRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2878 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetUpdateProtectionPolicyRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2930 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetUpdateProtectedItemRequestsObjects' 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.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2982 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'ResourceGuards_Put' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2511 |
|
| 'PATCH' operation 'ResourceGuards_Patch' should use method name 'Update'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L2664 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3588 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json#L3761 |
️️✔️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: 5 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json compared with base:stable/2022-01-01/dataprotection.json
- current:stable/2022-03-01/dataprotection.json compared with base:preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json
️❌CredScan: 0 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
️️✔️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
|
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @mayankagg9722 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
|
I am merging the below preview swagger to a new stable API version. |
This was referenced Mar 15, 2022
mayankagg9722
added
the
DoNotMerge
raosuhas
added
ARMChangesRequested
|
Minor change requested. Rest looks good. Signing off |
Yes @raosuhas, we have added these intentionally and reviewed them during private preview. |
|
@weidongxu-microsoft , @ArcturusZhang could you please help to review the update in readme.md files and the SDK breaking change? @msyyc could you please help to review the SDK breaking change? |
|
@mayankagg9722 the api readiness check is required, please update the ARM manifest, thanks |
|
Generally service no longer need to update readme.java.md, as track2 Java no longer support multi-api. |
Sure @xiaoxuqi-ms I will start the ARM SDP soon. I will let you know once it completes. Thanks. |
|
approved for python breaking change |
mayankagg9722
changed the title
mayankagg9722
removed
the
DoNotMerge
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Hi @xiaoxuqi-ms ARM SDP is completed, can you please approve and complete this PR. |
xiaoxuqi-ms
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2022
| @@ -4,13 +4,13 @@ | |||
| "resourceGroupName": "000pikumar", | |||
| "vaultName": "PratikPrivatePreviewVault1", | |||
| "backupInstanceName": "testInstance1", | |||
| "api-version": "2022-01-01" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In title, this PR is to add version 2022-03-01 from 2021-12-01-preview, but here in example, why is the new version updated from 2022-01-01?
This was referenced Apr 4, 2022
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2022
…18260) * base commit from "2022-01-01" * adding new restore criteria * changing api versions in examples * changing readme
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.
-[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.
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.