-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[NetAppFiles] Anf 19190 update for 2022 01 01 #18516
[NetAppFiles] Anf 19190 update for 2022 01 01 #18516
Conversation
Hi, @audunn 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 |
---|---|
Based on the response model schema, operation 'Volumes_Get' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json#L866 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: encrypted Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json#L5364 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: relocationRequested Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json#L5618 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 19 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
Rule | Message |
---|---|
R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema |
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.NetApp/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L40 |
R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema |
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.NetApp/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-06-01/netapp.json#L40 |
R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema |
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.NetApp/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-08-01/netapp.json#L40 |
R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema |
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.NetApp/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-10-01/netapp.json#L40 |
R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema |
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.NetApp/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json#L40 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'OperationListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2774 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'display' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2794 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'OperationProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2826 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'ServiceSpecification' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2835 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'MetricSpecification' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2854 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'Dimension' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L2954 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'exportPolicy' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L3811 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'dataProtection' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L3886 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'exportPolicy' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L4279 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'dataProtection' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L4298 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'cloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L5385 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'cloudErrorBody' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-04-01/netapp.json#L5395 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'OperationListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-06-01/netapp.json#L2854 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'display' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.NetApp/stable/2021-06-01/netapp.json#L2874 |
️️✔️
Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️
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 Errors, 156 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.5)
- current:stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json compared with base:stable/2021-10-01/netapp.json
- current:stable/2022-01-01/netapp.json compared with base:preview/2021-04-01-preview/netapp.json
Only 19 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
Only 19 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️❌
PoliCheck: 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
|
Hi, @audunn your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
Hi @audunn, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
Hi @audunn, 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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🕐
updated |
|
Those are generated by the service, fyi this was added in 2021-06-01 |
@tianxchen-ms @ArcturusZhang @rkmanda ARMSignedOff can we move this along now ? |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
* Add api version dir * Apply 2022-01-01 Changes * Remove Default from throughputMibps * add list x-ms-identifiers * Bump api version in examples * pretty, spelling * fix operations lists example * fix lro exampes * add systemData to 2021-08-01 * apply list identifyer added in another PR to previous version * Encyprtionkeysource enum * review comment fixes * Fixes quotaRule * Referenc common types * common types * more common * Remove regionInfo endpoint * Revert NetAppAccount using common types due to linDiff validation * Revert NetAppAccount using common types due to linDiff validation * Revert NetAppAccount using common types due to linDiff validation * Remove regionInfo endpoint2 * merge * fixes EncryptionKeySource * fixes EncryptionKeySource. * x-ms-identifiers * sibling rivalry * add regionInfo * add regionInfo.json * etag * etag * etag 2021-08-01 * remove regionInfo * VolumeQuotaRule response code * proxy resource from v3
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.