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

Updating PUT operation requirements for SourceControls and SourceControlSyncJobs, updating streams’ value property, and updating examples. #3580

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 6, 2018

Conversation

Francisco-Gamino
Copy link
Contributor

@Francisco-Gamino Francisco-Gamino commented Aug 5, 2018

The PR contains the following changes:

  • Updating source control security token requirements for PUT operation.
  • Fixing SourceControlSyncJobs examples by replacing property 'syncJobId' for 'sourceControlSyncJobId'.
  • Making commitId property required and allowing empty values.
  • Making stream's value property an object instead of a string, and updating examples.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 5, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#1959

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 5, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 5, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-ruby

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 5, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#2398

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 5, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#3290

Copy link
Member

@annatisch annatisch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good - just a new minor things.
Just to confirm - are you aware that these changes are breaking and will result in a major version bump for all generated SDKs?

@@ -493,8 +494,8 @@
},
"securityToken": {
"type": "string",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that this is a complex object - please remove the "type":"string.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I missed that, thanks. Fixed.

@@ -352,7 +352,8 @@
},
"securityToken": {
"type": "string",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that this is a complex object - please remove the "type":"string.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed.

@@ -352,7 +352,8 @@
},
"securityToken": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Gets or sets the authorization token for the repo of the source control."
"description": "Gets or sets the authorization token for the repo of the source control.",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please avoid terminology like "Gets or sets" as this isn't idiomatic for all generated SDK languages. Just stick with the description: "The authorization token for the repo of the source control."

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for the suggestion. Fixed.

@@ -493,8 +494,8 @@
},
"securityToken": {
"type": "string",
"maxLength": 1024,
"description": "Gets or sets the authorization token for the repo of the source control."
"description": "Gets or sets the authorization token for the repo of the source control.",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please avoid terminology like "Gets or sets" as this isn't idiomatic for all generated SDK languages. Just stick with the description. This also applies to the other descriptions below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed.

@Francisco-Gamino
Copy link
Contributor Author

@annatisch: Thank you for the fast review. I've updated the specs, could you please take another look?

Regarding your comment: "Just to confirm - are you aware that these changes are breaking and will result in a major version bump for all generated SDKs?"
@vrdmr: Do you seen any issues with a major version bump for all regenerated Azure Automation SDKs?

Thanks!
Francisco

@annatisch
Copy link
Member

Thanks @Francisco-Gamino for the quick response!

Whether you publish breaking changes to the SDKs is up to you - we generally recommend that service teams try to group as many breaking changes together so as to avoid frequently breaking releases - however you best know your customers and the frequency of major changes to your API :)

Once the CI passes I will take another look!

Copy link
Member

@annatisch annatisch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me! And thanks for fixing up the other descriptions :)

@annatisch
Copy link
Member

Thanks @Francisco-Gamino - do you want me to merge now or are you waiting on any internal review?

@Francisco-Gamino
Copy link
Contributor Author

Francisco-Gamino commented Aug 6, 2018

Awesome! Thanks @annatisch! If you could merge it now, that would be great. Thanks again!

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.

4 participants