-
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
Microsoft.DataProtection new API Version 2022 05 01 #19083
Microsoft.DataProtection new API Version 2022 05 01 #19083
Conversation
…022-04-01 to version 2022-05-01
Hi, @umpatel 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 |
Swagger Validation Report
|
Rule | Message |
---|---|
'DppProxyResource' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L4959 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
Rule | Message |
---|---|
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesRequestResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L3549 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesResponseResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L3580 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'AzureBackupRecoveryPointResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L3841 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'BackupInstanceResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L4172 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'BackupVaultResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L4331 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'BaseBackupPolicyResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L4391 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'CloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L4591 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'Error' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L5090 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L5128 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L5350 |
R4037 - MissingTypeObject |
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L5398 |
R4039 - ParametersOrder |
The parameters:operationId,location should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/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/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L2664 |
|
Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L3588 |
|
Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json#L3761 |
️️✔️
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: 17 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.5)
- current:stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json compared with base:stable/2022-04-01/dataprotection.json
- current:stable/2022-05-01/dataprotection.json compared with base:preview/2022-03-31-preview/dataprotection.json
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
️️✔️
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
- 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, @umpatel your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
Hi @xiaoxuqi-ms Please review the swagger changes |
@ArcturusZhang could you help to review this pr for go SDK breaking change? |
This PR does not contain go track 2 breaking changes, therefore this does not need my review |
@umpatel please register ARM manifest and once the ApiReadness is ready, please let me know. |
@xiaoxuqi-ms I have started the ARM manifest update on the 13/6 and it will complete by 17/06 |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
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 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.
-[ ] 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.