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.

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

Update Microsoft.Backup.Admin API version 2018-09-01 #3891

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 18, 2018

Conversation

daozha
Copy link
Contributor

@daozha daozha commented Sep 13, 2018

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 13, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-python

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 13, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 13, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-node

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 13, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-ruby

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Sep 13, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go

Copy link
Contributor

@hovsepm hovsepm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@daozha please rework you PR in a way that 1st commit will be a copy without any modification from the previous version of your service swagger and the second commit will be your changes.

@deathly809
Copy link
Member

@bganapa / @vlad-MSFT / @knithinc This is update spec for BRP.

@daozha
Copy link
Contributor Author

daozha commented Sep 14, 2018

@hovsepm Done. Thanks for your suggestion.

@bganapa
Copy link
Member

bganapa commented Sep 14, 2018

@hovsepm Please wait till one of us from azure stack approves this PR.

@@ -226,17 +226,23 @@
"description": "Password to access the location.",
"type": "string"
},
"encryptionKeyBase64": {
"description": "Encryption key.",
"encryptionCertBase64": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not 100% sure on how certs work, but I know there is usually a public and private key. Does this relate to the public key? Private key?

"RestoreOptions": {
"description": "Properties for restore options.",
"properties": {
"decryptionCertBase64": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So this is the private key, which means during backup we use the public key?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, public key to wrap the our internally generated encryption key during backup, and private key to decrypt that encryption key during restore.

Copy link
Member

@deathly809 deathly809 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Everything looks good to me.

@hovsepm hovsepm added the DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval label Sep 17, 2018
@hovsepm
Copy link
Contributor

hovsepm commented Sep 17, 2018

@bganapa please ping me directly when this PR will be ready for review.

@hovsepm hovsepm added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required Azure Stack and removed DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 17, 2018
@hovsepm
Copy link
Contributor

hovsepm commented Sep 17, 2018

@daozha please fix model validator errors (more precisely issues in examples for the new API version) https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/428425013

"$ref": "#/definitions/BackupLocation"
}
},
"404": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove 404, when you specify 404 here, the SDK will eat out the exception. We have been standardizing on not to specify any error codes in the swagger

"$ref": "#/definitions/BackupLocation"
}
},
"404": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Put returning 404? please remove here as well

"$ref": "#/definitions/BackupList"
}
},
"404": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please remove 404 everywhere

"responses": {
"200": {},
"202": {},
"404": {}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you will be in need of removing 404 in the examples as well

Copy link
Member

@bganapa bganapa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good except for 404

@daozha
Copy link
Contributor Author

daozha commented Sep 18, 2018

@bganapa Done, removed all 404. Thanks.

@daozha
Copy link
Contributor Author

daozha commented Sep 18, 2018

@hovsepm Done. Thank you.

@hovsepm
Copy link
Contributor

hovsepm commented Sep 18, 2018

@daozha good. I need explicit sign-off from @bganapa

@bganapa
Copy link
Member

bganapa commented Sep 18, 2018

@hovsepm looks good to us. Approved. Thanks for the follow ups.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants