Added Nic entity type and IoT Device properties to EntityTypes.json #19391
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, @nmizrahi6 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] |
1 similar comment
|
Hi, @nmizrahi6 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 |
|---|---|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isAuthorized Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1089 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isProgramming Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1094 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isScanner Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1099 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Guid used in model definition 'AccountEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L69 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IoTDeviceEntityProperties' for property 'iotSecurityAgentId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L935 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailboxEntityProperties' for property 'externalDirectoryObjectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1238 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailMessageEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1464 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SecurityGroupEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2374 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SubmissionMailEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2413 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L59 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L744 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isVolumeAnomaly Location: preview/2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1324 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️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.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.5)
- current:2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json compared with base:2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json
- current:2022-07-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json compared with base:2022-06-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
|
Hi, @nmizrahi6 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
ARMReview
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @nmizrahi6 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Jun 9, 2022
This was referenced Jun 9, 2022
raosuhas
reviewed
Jun 10, 2022
| "deviceSubType": { | ||
| "description": "The subType of the device ('PLC', 'HMI', 'EWS', etc.)", | ||
| "readOnly": true, | ||
| "type": "string" |
raosuhas
reviewed
Jun 10, 2022
| }, | ||
| "isScanner": { | ||
| "description": "Is the device classified as a scanner device", | ||
| "readOnly": true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
consider upgrading to enum as explained here : https://armwiki.azurewebsites.net/rp_onboarding/process/api_review_best_practices.html#common-issues-found-in-review
Replace boolean/switch properties with better enum
A Boolean will forever have two valid values (true or false). A string enum type is always preferred. Also, properties should always provide better values just than True and False. For example two switches "isTypeA" and "isTypeB" should be replaced with one enum "type": [A, B, DefaultType]. Even if you still believe [True, False] are the correct values for a property, you should use a string enum with values [True, False] instead of boolean. Enums are always a more flexible and future proof option because they allow additional values to be added in the future in a non-breaking way, e.g. [True, False, Unknown].
|
Added a few minor comments and signing off. Please fix and checkin. Let me know if any clarifications are required |
raosuhas
added
the
ARMSignedOff
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
dw511214992
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2022
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsights from version preview/2022-06-01-preview to version 2022-07-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Added Nic entity type and IoT Device properties to EntityTypes.json (#19391) * added Nic entity type + modified IoTDevice props * updated GetIoTDeviceEntity example fields * ran prettier Co-authored-by: Natanel Mizrahi <[email protected]> * Update automation rules alert trigger swagger (#19388) Co-authored-by: nmizrahi6 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Natanel Mizrahi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Dor Siso <[email protected]>
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.
Description
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for 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
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following appy to the PR so that the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.
-[ ] 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.
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.