[Key Vault Admin] Convenience layer - KeyVaultAccessControlClient #10815
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | ||
| { | ||
| "$schema": "https://developer.microsoft.com/json-schemas/api-extractor/v7/api-extractor.schema.json", | ||
| "mainEntryPointFilePath": "types/keyvault-admin/src/index.d.ts", | ||
| "docModel": { | ||
| "enabled": true | ||
| }, | ||
| "apiReport": { | ||
| "enabled": true, | ||
| "reportFolder": "./review" | ||
| }, | ||
| "dtsRollup": { | ||
| "enabled": true, | ||
| "untrimmedFilePath": "", | ||
| "publicTrimmedFilePath": "./types/keyvault-admin.d.ts" | ||
| }, | ||
| "messages": { | ||
| "tsdocMessageReporting": { | ||
| "default": { | ||
| "logLevel": "none" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "extractorMessageReporting": { | ||
| "ae-missing-release-tag": { | ||
| "logLevel": "none" | ||
| }, | ||
| "ae-unresolved-link": { | ||
| "logLevel": "none" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | ||
| ## API Report File for "@azure/keyvault-admin" | ||
|
|
||
| > Do not edit this file. It is a report generated by [API Extractor](https://api-extractor.com/). | ||
|
|
||
| ```ts | ||
|
|
||
| import * as coreHttp from '@azure/core-http'; | ||
| import { PagedAsyncIterableIterator } from '@azure/core-paging'; | ||
| import { TokenCredential } from '@azure/core-http'; | ||
|
|
||
| // @public (undocumented) | ||
| export class AccessControlClient { | ||
| constructor(vaultUrl: string, credential: TokenCredential, pipelineOptions?: AccessControlClientOptions); | ||
| createRoleAssignment(scope: RoleAssignmentScope, name: string, options?: CreateRoleAssignmentOptions): Promise<KeyVaultRoleAssignment>; | ||
sadasant marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| deleteRoleAssignment(scope: RoleAssignmentScope, name: string, options?: DeleteRoleAssignmentOptions): Promise<KeyVaultRoleAssignment>; | ||
| getRoleAssignment(scope: RoleAssignmentScope, name: string, options?: DeleteRoleAssignmentOptions): Promise<KeyVaultRoleAssignment>; | ||
| listRoleAssignments(scope: RoleAssignmentScope, options?: ListRoleAssignmentsOptions): PagedAsyncIterableIterator<KeyVaultRoleAssignment>; | ||
| listRoleDefinitions(scope: RoleAssignmentScope, options?: ListRoleDefinitionsOptions): PagedAsyncIterableIterator<KeyVaultRoleDefinition>; | ||
| readonly vaultUrl: string; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface AccessControlClientOptions extends coreHttp.PipelineOptions { | ||
| serviceVersion?: SUPPORTED_API_VERSIONS; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface CreateRoleAssignmentOptions extends coreHttp.OperationOptions { | ||
| properties?: RoleAssignmentProperties; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface DeleteRoleAssignmentOptions extends coreHttp.OperationOptions { | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface KeyVaultRoleAssignment { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Before I do this change, let's argue about prefixes here: #10815 (comment) There was a problem hiding this comment. @heaths I'm assuming KeyVaultRoleAssignment is favored after that conversation I mentioned ^ |
||
| readonly id?: string; | ||
| readonly name?: string; | ||
| properties?: RoleAssignmentPropertiesWithScope; | ||
| readonly type?: string; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface KeyVaultRoleDefinition { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Before I do this change, let's argue about prefixes here: #10815 (comment) There was a problem hiding this comment. @heaths I'm assuming KeyVaultRoleDefinition is favored after that conversation I mentioned ^ |
||
| assignableScopes?: string[]; | ||
| description?: string; | ||
| readonly id?: string; | ||
| readonly name?: string; | ||
| permissions?: RoleDefinitionPermission[]; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Sounds good to me! I'll do the changes you suggest for now to align to .Net and then we'll follow up. There was a problem hiding this comment. Should the KeyVault prefix exist on the There was a problem hiding this comment. Same goes for RoleAssignment, should it be prefixed too? There was a problem hiding this comment. Addressed the KeyVaultPermission part of this conversation here: 26e9583 There was a problem hiding this comment. One more consistency naming issue - java is using //cc: @vcolin7 There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't like the assignment part either! but otherwise I'll leave y'all to agree There was a problem hiding this comment. Yeah I prefer to have the There was a problem hiding this comment. Reading a bit more of the conversation above I think it's a good idea to use the prefix to for the sake of consistency. There was a problem hiding this comment. Python here: Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#13372 seems to be using these as well: KeyVaultPermission This should go to Archboard review eventually, but I think we could keep things consistent together first. |
||
| roleName?: string; | ||
| roleType?: string; | ||
| readonly type?: string; | ||
sadasant marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export const LATEST_API_VERSION = "7.1"; | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface ListRoleAssignmentsOptions extends coreHttp.OperationOptions { | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface ListRoleDefinitionsOptions extends coreHttp.OperationOptions { | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface RoleAssignmentProperties { | ||
| principalId?: string; | ||
| roleDefinitionId?: string; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface RoleAssignmentPropertiesWithScope extends RoleAssignmentProperties { | ||
| scope?: RoleAssignmentScope; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export type RoleAssignmentScope = "/" | "/keys"; | ||
sadasant marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export interface RoleDefinitionPermission { | ||
| actions?: string[]; | ||
| dataActions?: string[]; | ||
| notActions?: string[]; | ||
| notDataActions?: string[]; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export const SDK_VERSION: string; | ||
|
|
||
| // @public | ||
| export type SUPPORTED_API_VERSIONS = "7.0" | "7.1" | "7.2-preview"; | ||
sadasant marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| // (No @packageDocumentation comment for this package) | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
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.
Per discussion below, the principalId and roleDefinitionId (?) should be parameters. Same goes for any required parameters in other methods that follow.
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 have updated this by this point, to be:
Note that I used
roleDefinitionIdfirst, thenprincipalId, since I believe that the former one has a smaller scope than the later one, so I'm trying to go from micro to macro, scope-wise. Does this make sense? I can change it, I won't push back, but this is my argument for my current approach.Wait, what other methods have these as the required parameters?
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.
The only methods that have these properties in .Net are: CreateRoleAssignment, and CreateRoleAssignmentAsync.