Ericchoi/main/event hub/2024 01 01 #26672
Merged
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
…o stable folder renamed as 2024-01-01
…y created folder; Removing all references to -preview keyword in all files names in new folder
ericchoi319
requested review from
v-Ajnava,
dsouzaarun and
damodaravadhani
as code owners
|
Automatic PR validation restarted. This comment will be populated with next steps to merge this PR once validation is completed. Please wait ⌛. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| ApplicationGroups.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| AuthorizationRules.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| AuthorizationRules.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| CheckNameAvailability.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| CheckNameAvailability.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| SchemaRegistry.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| SchemaRegistry.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| consumergroups.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| consumergroups.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| disasterRecoveryConfigs.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| disasterRecoveryConfigs.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| eventhubs.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| eventhubs.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
| namespaces.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2017-04-01(main) |
| operations.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2021-11-01(main) |
| operations.json | 2024-01-01(adabec8) | 2023-01-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{namespaceName}/messagingplan' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2017-04-01/namespaces.json#L330:5 |
|
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'code' renamed or removed? New: resource-manager/common/v2/definitions.json#L77:7 Old: resource-manager/common/v1/definitions.json#L59:7 |
|
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'message' renamed or removed? New: resource-manager/common/v2/definitions.json#L77:7 Old: resource-manager/common/v1/definitions.json#L59:7 |
|
The new version has a different 'maximum' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L846:9 Old: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2017-04-01/namespaces.json#L401:9 |
|
The new version has a different 'maximum' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L773:13 Old: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2017-04-01/namespaces.json#L470:13 |
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| "details":"Attention: There are some existing APIs currently documented in a new spec file. The validation may not be able to report breaking changes with these APIs. It is recommended not to rename swagger file or move public APIs to a new file when creating a new API version.The existing APIs being moved are:Clusters_ListAvailableClusterRegion;", "location":"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/eventhub/resource-manager/Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AvailableClusterRegions.json" |
|
| "details":"Attention: There are some existing APIs currently documented in a new spec file. The validation may not be able to report breaking changes with these APIs. It is recommended not to rename swagger file or move public APIs to a new file when creating a new API version.The existing APIs being moved are:Namespaces_ListNetworkRuleSet;", "location":"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/eventhub/resource-manager/Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/networkrulessets.json" |
|
| "details":"Attention: There are some existing APIs currently documented in a new spec file. The validation may not be able to report breaking changes with these APIs. It is recommended not to rename swagger file or move public APIs to a new file when creating a new API version.The existing APIs being moved are:Configuration_Patch, Configuration_Get;", "location":"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/eventhub/resource-manager/Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/quotaConfiguration.json" |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️❌LintDiff: 76 Errors, 60 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.6) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2024-01 | package-2024-01(adabec8) | default(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
|
Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Clusters' 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.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AvailableClusterRegions.json#L42 |
|
|
Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AvailableClusterRegions.json#L60 |
|
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AvailableClusterRegions.json#L78 |
|
|
The resource name parameter 'clusterName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L118 |
RPC-Uri-V1-05 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L159 |
RPC-Async-V1-11, RPC-Put-V1-11 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L209 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L215 |
|
|
Long-running PATCH operations must have responses with 200, 202 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L221 |
RPC-Patch-V1-06 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L268 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L274 |
|
|
Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L280 |
RPC-Delete-V1-01 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L309 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L318 |
|
|
The resource name parameter 'clusterName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L325 |
RPC-Uri-V1-05 |
|
Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model.Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L354 |
|
|
The resource name parameter 'clusterName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L367 |
RPC-Uri-V1-05 |
|
System data references must utilize common types. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json#L418 |
|
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L119 |
RPC-Async-V1-11, RPC-Put-V1-11 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L169 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L175 |
|
|
Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L181 |
RPC-Delete-V1-01 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L210 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L219 |
|
|
Operations with a 202 response must specify x-ms-long-running-operation: true.Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L265 |
RPC-Post-V1-09 |
|
Synchronous PATCH operations must have responses with 200 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L265 |
RPC-Patch-V1-06 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L312 |
RPC-Async-V1-07 |
|
The resource name parameter 'privateEndpointConnectionName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L372 |
RPC-Uri-V1-05 |
|
Operations with a 202 response must specify x-ms-long-running-operation: true.Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L373 |
RPC-Post-V1-09 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L373 |
RPC-Async-V1-11, RPC-Put-V1-11 |
|
A tracked resource MUST always have tags as a top level optional property. Tracked resource does not have tags in the request schema. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/namespaces.json#L373 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The resource name parameter 'applicationGroupName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L82 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L83 |
|
A tracked resource MUST always have tags as a top level optional property. Tracked resource does not have tags in the request schema. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L83 |
|
Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'ApplicationGroup' 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.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L87 |
|
Tracked resource 'ApplicationGroup' must have patch operation that at least supports the update of tags. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L243 |
|
System data references must utilize common types. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/ApplicationGroups.json#L274 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L82 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L83 |
|
A tracked resource MUST always have tags as a top level optional property. Tracked resource does not have tags in the request schema. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L83 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L222 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L267 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L369 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L417 |
|
The resource name parameter 'eventHubName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L465 |
|
The resource name parameter 'eventHubName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L513 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L513 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L514 |
|
A tracked resource MUST always have tags as a top level optional property. Tracked resource does not have tags in the request schema. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L514 |
|
The resource name parameter 'eventHubName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L662 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L662 |
|
The resource name parameter 'eventHubName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L710 |
|
The resource name parameter 'authorizationRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L710 |
|
The schema 'AuthorizationRuleListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L769 |
|
The schema 'AuthorizationRule' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L785 |
|
Tracked resource 'AuthorizationRule' must have patch operation that at least supports the update of tags. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L785 |
|
The schema 'properties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L787 |
|
System data references must utilize common types. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L815 |
|
The schema 'AccessKeys' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L825 |
|
The schema 'RegenerateAccessKeyParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/AuthorizationRules.json#L865 |
|
The schema 'CheckNameAvailabilityParameter' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/CheckNameAvailability.json#L100 |
️❌Avocado: 9 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/CheckNameAvailability is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/CheckNamespaceAvailability is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2014-09-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/AuthorizationRules is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/AuthorizationRules/{} is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/AuthorizationRules/{}/listKeys is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/AuthorizationRules/{}/regenerateKeys is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/eventhubs/{}/authorizationRules/{}/ListKeys is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2015-08-01/EventHub.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/resourceGroups/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/namespaces/{}/messagingplan is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2017-04-01/namespaces.json |
|
The default tag should contain all APIs. The API path /subscriptions/{}/providers/Microsoft.EventHub/sku/{}/regions is not in the default tag. Please make sure the missing API swaggers are in the default tag.readme: specification/eventhub/resource-manager/readme.md json: Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2017-04-01/sku.json |
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️️✔️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).
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
️️✔️Automated merging requirements met succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Generated ApiView
|
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
ARMReview
CI-MissingBaseCommit
new-api-version
resource-manager
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi @ericchoi319! For review efficiency consideration, when creating a new API version, it is required to place API specs of the base version in the first commit, and push new version updates into successive commits. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. |
This was referenced Nov 11, 2023
specification/eventhub/resource-manager/Microsoft.EventHub/stable/2024-01-01/Clusters.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ng change fix for EHNamespaceFailover
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
ARMChangesRequested
TimLovellSmith
added
the
ARMSignedOff
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
ARMChangesRequested
…ces.json;Not justifiable to go into stable version
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
ARMChangesRequested
mikekistler
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
TimLovellSmith
added
the
ARMSignedOff
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
ARMChangesRequested
Alancere
added
the
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
|
/pr RequestMerge |
|
Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment. |
This was referenced Nov 16, 2023
Closed
Closed
7 tasks
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.
ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request
PR review workflow diagram
Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.
[1] ARM review queue (for merge queues, see [4])
The PRs are processed by time opened, ascending. Your PR may show up on 2nd or later page.
If you addressed Step 1 from the diagram and your PR is not showing up in the queue, ensure the label
ARMChangesRequestedis removed from your PR. This should cause the label
WaitForARMFeedbackto be added.[2] https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel
[3] List of SDK breaking changes approvers in pinned Teams announcement
[4] public repo merge queue, private repo merge queue (for ARM review queue, [1])
If you need further help with anything, see
Getting helpsection below.Purpose of this PR
What's the purpose of this PR? Check all that apply. This is mandatory!
Due diligence checklist
To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:
ARM resource provider contract and
REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
I understand this is required before I can proceed to Step 2, "ARM Review", for this PR.
Breaking changes review (Step 1)
you must follow the breaking changes process.
IMPORTANT This applies even if:
Such claims must be reviewed, and the process is the same.
ARM API changes review (Step 2)
ARMReviewlabel.Viewing API changes
For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the
Generated ApiViewcomment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.Suppressing failures
If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
Swagger-Suppression-Process
to get approval.
Getting help
and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.