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

Adding a new api version 2019-06-01 for Microsoft.Authorization policy artifacts #6998

Merged

Conversation

sandipsh
Copy link
Contributor

@sandipsh sandipsh commented Aug 19, 2019

…tent is same as that of 2019-01-01, so please ignore the content of this folder for now. I will make changes to it soon.

Latest improvements:

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

  • I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
  • The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
  • adding/removing APIs.
  • adding/removing properties.
  • adding/removing API-version.
  • adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
    Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

…tent is same as that of 2019-01-01, so please ignore the content of this folder for now. I will make changes to it soon.
@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Aug 19, 2019

In Testing, Please Ignore

[Logs] (Generated from edd74f0, Iteration 4)

Warning .NET: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-net [Logs] [Diff]
  • No packages generated.
Failed Python: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-python [Logs]
  • No packages generated.
Failed Java: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-java [Logs] [Diff]
Warning Go: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-go [Logs] [Diff]
  • Warning preview/resources/mgmt/2015-10-01-preview [Logs]
  • Warning preview/resources/mgmt/2016-09-01-preview [Logs]
  • Warning preview/resources/mgmt/2017-06-01-preview [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2015-01-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2015-11-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2015-12-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-02-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-04-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-06-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-07-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-09-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2016-12-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2017-05-10 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2017-09-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2018-02-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2018-03-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2018-05-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2018-06-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2019-01-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2019-03-01 [Logs]
  • Warning resources/mgmt/2019-05-01 [Logs]
  • Succeeded resources/mgmt/2019-06-01 [Logs] [Instructions] [Generation PR] [Integration PR]
Succeeded JavaScript: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-js [Logs] [Diff]

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 19, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#6834

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 19, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#5626

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@sandipsh sandipsh changed the title Adding a baseline folder for new api version 2019-06-01 as a baseline. Content unchanged at the moment. I will do it soon Adding a new api version 2019-06-01 for Microsoft.Authorization policy artifacts Aug 21, 2019
@majastrz majastrz added ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Aug 22, 2019
Copy link
Member

@majastrz majastrz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add descriptions to the enum values and also take a look at the other question I asked?

"x-ms-enum": {
"name": "enforcementMode",
"modelAsString": true,
"values": [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  	 [](start = 0, length = 3)

tabs to spaces in a few places that were edited

Copy link
Contributor

@pilor pilor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

Copy link
Member

@majastrz majastrz 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.

@majastrz majastrz added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Aug 22, 2019
This was referenced Aug 22, 2019
@jhendrixMSFT
Copy link
Member

@sandipsh has this API version been deployed?

@sandipsh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jhendrixMSFT, yes this API version has been deployed now in PROD and national clouds.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants