-
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
[Cogs Face] Align with latest released version of Face API with million-scale features. #3552
Conversation
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-pythonThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-nodeThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-rubyThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-javaThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-goThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
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.
LGTM
} | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"/largepersongroups/{largePersonGroupId}/persons/{personId}": { |
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.
Just double confirm, the paths are not case sensitive right?
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.
Yes, at least the generated .NET SDK works well. I'd like to append a minor commit to unify them to lower-case.
(BTW, the parameters inside {}
are actually user-provided variables, rather than part of path.)
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.
I bring this up because I saw: "/largepersongroups/{largePersonGroupId}/persons/{personId}/persistedFaces/{persistedFaceId}"
For parameters, lowerCamelCase is good enough.
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.
Yes, thanks.
@annatisch, I think this is good to merge, thanks. |
}, | ||
"get": { | ||
"description": "List all faces in a large face list, and retrieve face information (including userData and persistedFaceIds of registered faces of the face).", | ||
"operationId": "LargeFaceListFace_List", |
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.
I think this operation ID should be changed to "LargeFaceList_ListFaces"
This would make it more consistent with the other operations like "LargeFaceList_GetFace" and "LargeFaceList_DeleteFace" etc.
Alternatively you could rename all of them: "LargeFaceListFace_Delete", "LargeFaceListFace_Get" etc
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.
Good catch! Thanks for pointing out this! Fixed with the latest commit.
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.
@annatisch Also updated our generated .NET SDK and all works.
"/largepersongroups/{largePersonGroupId}/persons/{personId}/persistedfaces": { | ||
"post": { | ||
"description": "Add a representative face to a person for identification. The input face is specified as an image with a targetFace rectangle.", | ||
"operationId": "LargePersonGroupPerson_AddPersonFaceFromUrl", |
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.
Seems this is not consistent with LargePersonGroupPerson_Delete/Get/UpdateFace
. Maybe AddFaceFromUrl
? But since the conventional PersonGroup also have this problem, I think it is OK to change it in a different pull request, but maybe it is better to align them before the release of breaking change.
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.
Fixed it in this PR since it is tiny and new PR does take longer.
}, | ||
"get": { | ||
"description": "List all persons in a large person group, and retrieve person information (including personId, name, userData and persistedFaceIds of registered faces of the person).", | ||
"operationId": "LargePersonGroupPerson_List", |
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.
If we prefer LargeFaceList_ListFaces
then how about this? Besides, we also have LargePersonGroupPerson_Create/Get/Update/Delete
.
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.
Using LargeFaceList_ListFaces
is to be differentiated with LargeFaceList_List
which refers to list large face lists. I guess you are thinking about the pattern of LargeFaceListFace_xx
for face level operations. Yes, it's another pattern while my thought is the SDK could be more friendly to user if it uses same level as API reference, where LargeFaceList operations are all inside LargeFaceList
section, without another level of LargeFaceListFace
section.
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.
Actually I am think about using LargePersonGroup_ListPersons
to align with LargeFaceList_ListFaces
, but I think it is OK if we keep following the structure of API reference.
@lebronJ - LGTM |
@annatisch, Yes, confirmed. It is compatible with our service and the reason is that the |
Thanks @huxuan - let me know if you are finished reviewing internally and I can merge. |
@AutorestCI regenerate azure-sdk-for-go |
Hi @annatisch and @jhendrixMSFT, the internal review already finished before sending this pull request. Please feel free to move forward! :-) |
(I am one of the main devs working on Face API and Face containers.)
This is to align Face API swaggers with latest published version with million-scale features.
===================================================================
This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.
PR information
api-version
in the path should match theapi-version
in the spec).Quality of Swagger