Skip to content
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

Update pull_request_assignment.yml #19032

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 12, 2022
Merged

Update pull_request_assignment.yml #19032

merged 2 commits into from
May 12, 2022

Conversation

czubair
Copy link
Contributor

@czubair czubair commented May 11, 2022

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

  • Check this box if any of the following appy to the PR so that the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] 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.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @czubair Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

  • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vscswagger@microsoft.com

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 11, 2022

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    Validation passes for LintDiff.
    ️️✔️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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    There is no credential detected.
    ️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    Validation passed for PoliCheck.
    ️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
    ️️✔️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).
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented May 11, 2022

    Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

    Copy link
    Member

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft left a comment

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    I am not sure 2 reviewers means both get assigned or 2 people rotates as single assignee.
    What one is the intention? @czubair

    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    @czubair czubair left a comment

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    @weidongxu-microsoft this will ask the automation to only add Ted on data plane PRs for Storage, correct?

    @czubair
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    czubair commented May 12, 2022

    I am not sure 2 reviewers means both get assigned or 2 people rotates as single assignee. What one is the intention? @czubair

    I updated my change so ted is the one assigned on data plane storage PRs. Will this conflict with the other rule that applied to all Storage PRs?

    The intention is for Ted to be on all dataplane PRs.

    @weidongxu-microsoft
    Copy link
    Member

    @czubair Yes, I think so. I will merge it soon.

    @czubair
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    czubair commented May 12, 2022

    @czubair Yes, I think so. I will merge it soon.

    Thank you!

    @weidongxu-microsoft
    Copy link
    Member

    weidongxu-microsoft commented May 12, 2022

    @czubair

    This block should be the default for ALL data-plane (if not specifier earlier).

    - rule:
    # data-plane PR
    paths:
    - "specification/**/data-plane/**"
    reviewers:
    - anuchandy
    - jhendrixMSFT
    - tjprescott

    If you mean Ted to be assignee for ALL data-plane (do you?), you would likely need to update that as well.

    The intention is for Ted to be on all dataplane PRs.

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft merged commit e00e3e5 into main May 12, 2022
    FredericHeem pushed a commit to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request May 16, 2022
    * Update pull_request_assignment.yml
    
    * Update pull_request_assignment.yml
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    None yet
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants