-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[KeyVault] - Migrate Key Vault Admin package to Core V2 #15881
Conversation
This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer. What is Check Enforcer?Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass. Why am I getting this message?You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged. What should I do now?If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows: What if I am onboarding a new service?Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment: |
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ | |||
"dependencies": { | |||
"@azure/abort-controller": "^1.0.0", | |||
"@azure/core-auth": "^1.3.0", | |||
"@azure/core-tracing": "1.0.0-preview.12", | |||
"@azure/core-tracing": "1.0.0-preview.11", |
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.
Because core-client depends on core-rest-pipeline 1.0.3 which still references preview 11, we need to downgrade here as well.
Once we GA core-rest-pipeline 1.1.0 and move all the packages to it we should be able to bump everyone to preview 12 in unison
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.
Going to try addressing this in #15881
/** | ||
* The accepted versions of the Key Vault's service API. | ||
*/ | ||
serviceVersion?: SUPPORTED_API_VERSIONS; | ||
} | ||
|
||
/** Known values of {@link DataAction} that the service accepts. */ | ||
export enum KnownKeyVaultDataAction { |
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.
Moved these here while Azure/autorest.typescript#1013 is investigated
/check-enforcer evaluate |
test comment |
/azp run js - keyvault - ci |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run js - keyvault - ci |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run js - keyvault - ci |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
} | ||
| { | ||
status: "complete"; | ||
}; |
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.
:o this is pretty!
} | ||
} | ||
return Promise.resolve(); | ||
} |
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.
Oh wow! This is a lot more thought through than what we had. I appreciate it!
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.
No stones left unturned! Bravo :)
36a760d
to
4dbb469
Compare
|
||
// @public | ||
export interface AccessControlClientOptions extends coreHttp.PipelineOptions { | ||
export interface AccessControlClientOptions extends CommonClientOptions { |
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.
Maor and I have talked about whether this is a breaking change. I don’t think so, but Let’s get @xirzec ‘s thoughts
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.
There are 3 relatively minor breaking changes:
- Optional property
mode
was removed fromretryOptions
since it only ever had a single enum value and was never used. handleRedirects
was removed fromredirectOptions
, as the policy can now be controlled by removing it from the pipeline or settingmaxRedirects
to 0.keepAliveOptions
were removed. Keep alive can be disabled on a per-request basis withdisableKeepAlive
.
These were all fairly niche options that tended to be used internally by our clients rather than set by consumers, but since we did expose them, we should consider what versioning implication this poses.
Alongside the change to remove _response
, a strict semver interpretation would be to major version the package, but debatably a minor bump could be sufficient. /cc @chradek @ramya-rao-a @jeremymeng - I think we should have broad agreement on what our policy is here.
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 do plan to merge this PR, but leaving this conversation open if folks want to chime in. I'll also add it to the list of team meeting topics I have here 👍
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.
Since this package is still a beta I am less worried about it and don't think the discussion is blocking this 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.
Can we log an issue to ensure the discussion is continued and we come to a conclusion before this package goes GA?
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.
Sure, opened #15916
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.
Did you re-generate from swagger? I am wondering why there isn't user agent related changes in generated code as we have seen in https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-js/pull/15777/files#diff-7a8e7d3e28eff9b33911029639e9b1582d1a692a0e39893e9fc6970916506c02
4252827
to
d651fd1
Compare
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.
Nice work on this! Very clean upgrade.
|
||
// @public | ||
export interface AccessControlClientOptions extends coreHttp.PipelineOptions { | ||
export interface AccessControlClientOptions extends CommonClientOptions { |
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.
Since this package is still a beta I am less worried about it and don't think the discussion is blocking this PR
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.RecoveryServices to add version stable/2021-08-01 (Azure#15881) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.RecoveryServices from version stable/2021-07-01 to version 2021-08-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Fixing readme file
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.RecoveryServices to add version stable/2021-08-01 (Azure#15881) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.RecoveryServices from version stable/2021-07-01 to version 2021-08-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Fixing readme file
What
KeyVaultBackupClient
andKeyVaultAccessControlClient
to core CAE@azure/core-lro
version to 1.0.6Why
This PR proves out two important things: it demonstrates that core continuous access evaluation works for both container
registry (already done) and Key Vault (this PR). It also demonstrates the migration path for Core V2 for Key Vault.
The change to core-lro addresses an issue where core-lro was incorrectly depending on core-http (#15880) That has been fixed on 1.0.6
and allows package owners to migrate to core-rest-pipeline and remove core-http without seeing build breaks.
Resolves #15522
Resolves #14306