Fix issues in mgmt group swaggers which result in problematic SDKs #12488
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi, @ArcturusZhang Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips. Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected] |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'OperationResultIdParameter' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Management/stable/2020-02-01/management.json#L1806:3 Old: Microsoft.Management/stable/2020-02-01/management.json#L1806:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'OperationResultIdParameter' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Management/stable/2020-05-01/management.json#L1922:3 Old: Microsoft.Management/stable/2020-05-01/management.json#L1922:3 |
|
The new version is removing enum value(s) 'Microsoft.Management/managementGroup' from the old version. Old: Microsoft.Management/stable/2020-02-01/management.json#L643:9 |
️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for LintDiff.
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @ArcturusZhang, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
Hi @ArcturusZhang, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. |
This was referenced Jan 19, 2021
ArcturusZhang
commented
Jan 19, 2021
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-parameter-location": "client" | ||
| }, | ||
| "OperationResultIdParameter": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This parameter is removed because there is no reference of this within the scope of this RP.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This causes lint errors. Can you double check?
ArcturusZhang
commented
Jan 19, 2021
| @@ -1787,14 +1787,14 @@ | |||
| "type": { | |||
| "type": "string", | |||
| "enum": [ | |||
| "Microsoft.Management/managementGroup" | |||
| "Microsoft.Management/managementGroups" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have to change this, because by design, the type of a resource should be in plural form. This must be a mistake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we ask service team to double confirm it is really typo?
ArcturusZhang
added
the
DoNotMerge
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
For python, the PR is OK |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
In the Window Period to fix mismatches between swagger and service, when PR is labelled with “FixS360”, breaking change can be approved by PR assignee; the Azure Breaking Change Board is no longer required to approve the PR. Please ensure to clarify what s360 action items to be solved, and @ mention PR assignee for awareness. Please check this wiki [Window to Fix Broken]( Window to Fix Broken - Overview (azure.com)) for more details. |
raych1
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2021
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-parameter-location": "client" | ||
| }, | ||
| "OperationResultIdParameter": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This causes lint errors. Can you double check?
raych1
added
Approved-BreakingChange
This was referenced Feb 2, 2021
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
…zure#12488) * fix issue in 2020-02-01 * fix issue in 2020-05-01 * fix model validation * fix prettier * revert some removal of x-ms-parameter-location
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please ensure you've reviewed following guidelines including ARM resource provider contract and REST guidelines. Estimated time (4 hours). This is required before you can request review from ARM API Review board.
If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged with urgency, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
Breaking Change Review Checklist
If there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.