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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fixed examples and added billing info #18095

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 7, 2022
Merged

Fixed examples and added billing info #18095

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 7, 2022

Conversation

daniel-rocha
Copy link
Contributor

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

Changelog

Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify - Fixed examples and added billing information
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

  • Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.

  • 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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @daniel-rocha Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

    • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected]

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    [Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks.

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Mar 4, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️❌BreakingChange: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
    Rule Message
    ❌ 1006 - RemovedDefinition The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was '408' removed or renamed?
    New: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L52:3
    Old: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L52:3
    ️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
    Rule Message
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L841
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L946
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L986
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1093
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1264
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1447
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1607
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1655
    ⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RouteModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Route' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
    Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1695
    ️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for Avocado.
    ️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    ️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for ModelValidation.
    ️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
    ️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There is no credential detected.
    ️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

    ️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
    ️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for SpellCheck.
    ️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Mar 4, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
     Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account.
    ️️✔️SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Breaking Changes Tracking

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]
    • ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 6549592. SDK Automation 14.0.0 
      command	sh scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initOutput.json
cmderr	[automation_init.sh] WARNING: Skipping azure-nspkg as it is not installed.
command	sh scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateOutput.json
cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice
cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice New minor version of npm available! 8.3.1 -> 8.5.3
cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice Changelog: <https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v8.5.3>
cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice Run `npm install -g [email protected]` to update!
cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice
warn	No file changes detected after generation
warn	No package detected after generation
    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]
    • ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 6549592. SDK Automation 14.0.0 
      command	./eng/mgmt/automation/init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initOutput.json
command	./eng/mgmt/automation/generate.py ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateOutput.json
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:02 INFO [Skip] readme path does not format as specification/*/resource-manager/readme.md
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:02 INFO [Skip] changed file specification/maps/data-plane/Route/preview/1.0/examples/GetRouteRange.json
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:02 INFO [GENERATE] Autorest from JSON ../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/maps/data-plane/Route/preview/1.0/route.json
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:02 INFO autorest --version=3.6.6 --use=@autorest/[email protected] --java --java.azure-libraries-for-java-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-java --java.output-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-java/sdk/maps/azure-maps-route --java.namespace=com.azure.maps.route --low-level-client --sdk-integration --generate-samples --input-file=../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/maps/data-plane/Route/preview/1.0/route.json  --artifact-id=azure-maps-route
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [VERSION][Not Found] cannot find version for "com.azure:azure-maps-route"
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [CI][Success] Write to ci.yml
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [POM][Process] dealing with pom.xml
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [POM][Success] Write to pom.xml
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [POM][Process] dealing with root pom
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [POM][Skip] pom already has module sdk/maps
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO [POM][Success] Write to root pom
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:25:46 INFO mvn --no-transfer-progress clean verify package -f /home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-java/pom.xml -Dmaven.javadoc.skip -Dgpg.skip -Drevapi.skip -pl com.azure:azure-maps-route -am
cmderr	[generate.py] SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
cmderr	[generate.py] SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
cmderr	[generate.py] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
cmderr	[generate.py] 2022-03-07 02:29:50 INFO [Skip] changed file specification/maps/data-plane/Route/readme.md
    • ️✔️azure-maps-route [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes] 
      cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG Got artifact_id: azure-maps-route
cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG Got artifact: pom.xml
cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG Got artifact: azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1-sources.jar
cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG Got artifact: azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1.jar
cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG Match jar package: azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1.jar
cmderr	[Inst] 2022-03-07 02:29:53 DEBUG output: {"full": "```sh\ncurl -L \"https://portal.azure-devex-tools.com/api/sdk-dl-pub?p=Azure/18095/azure-sdk-for-java/azure-maps-route/azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1.jar\" -o azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1.jar\nmvn install:install-file -DgroupId=com.azure -DartifactId=azure-maps-route -Dversion=1.0.0-beta.0 -Dfile=azure-maps-route-1.0.0-beta.1.jar -Dpackaging=jar -DgeneratePom=true
```"}
    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-net succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    • ️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from 6549592. SDK Automation 14.0.0 
      warn	Skip initScript due to not configured
command	sudo apt-get install -y dotnet-sdk-6.0
command	autorest --version=2.0.4421 --csharp --reflect-api-versions --license-header=MICROSOFT_MIT_NO_VERSION [email protected]/[email protected] --csharp-sdks-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-net/sdk ../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/maps/data-plane/Route/readme.md
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
cmderr	[Autorest] realpath(): Permission denied
    • ️✔️Azure.Maps.Route [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi @daniel-rocha, 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.
    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.
    If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see ARM Traffic statistic.
    If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback.

    This was referenced Mar 4, 2022
    Closed
    Closed
    @daniel-rocha daniel-rocha marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2022 08:00
    @daniel-rocha daniel-rocha requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2022 08:00
    @daniel-rocha daniel-rocha requested review from JeffreyRichter and johanste and removed request for a team March 4, 2022 08:00
    @daniel-rocha
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    Hello reviewers,

    For the breaking change report, it's a false positive. It's the same case as here:

    #18092 (comment)

    @JeffreyRichter JeffreyRichter added the Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 label Mar 4, 2022
    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft merged commit 6549592 into Azure:main Mar 7, 2022
    This was referenced Mar 7, 2022
    Closed
    Closed
    FredericHeem pushed a commit to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2022
    @daniel-rocha @FredericHeem
    Fixed examples and added billing info (Azure#18095)
    c3dc9bc 
    * Fixed examples and added billing info

* Fixed some methods with no billing info

* Fixed a buggy doc

* Fix tagging issue to pass lintdiff

Co-authored-by: Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers

    @weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft weidongxu-microsoft approved these changes

    @JeffreyRichter JeffreyRichter Awaiting requested review from JeffreyRichter JeffreyRichter is a code owner automatically assigned from Azure/api-stewardship-board

    @johanste johanste Awaiting requested review from johanste johanste is a code owner automatically assigned from Azure/api-stewardship-board

    Assignees

    @anuchandy anuchandy

    @tjprescott tjprescott

    Labels
    Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
    5 participants
    @daniel-rocha @weidongxu-microsoft @anuchandy @JeffreyRichter @tjprescott