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

swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes #12149

Merged

Conversation

vinagesh
Copy link
Member

@vinagesh vinagesh commented May 18, 2020

Bringing over all the changes we've collectively made and checked into the branch feature/iot/swaggerFixesComments

Made few more comment fixes here to help the project build.

The main change is in the swagger comments. Rest of the files are auto generated after making this change.

@vinagesh vinagesh force-pushed the feature/iot/vinagesh/swaggercommentchanges branch from e81286f to d3f1b52 Compare May 18, 2020 20:28
@bikamani
Copy link
Contributor

Bringing over all the changes we've collectively made and checked into the branch feature/iot/swaggerFixesComments

Made few more comment fixes here to help the project build.

The main change is in the swagger comments. Rest of the files are auto generated after making this change.

@sindhu-nagesh So is the plan to create changes for iothubservice.json per category, as a new branch?

Copy link
Member

@abhipsaMisra abhipsaMisra 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.

@vinagesh
Copy link
Member Author

@bikamani - No we will keep the rest in the branch it already exists. Comment changes need to be made in the branch that will be in master for code to compile and we are sure the service team will add it. Hence the manual edits only to comments here. The idea is to just pull the latest swagger the service will create going forward. The should incorporate our suggestions and at the least fix the comments. This is a temporary way to unblock ourselves.

@vinagesh vinagesh merged commit 7517c3c into feature/IoT-Hub May 18, 2020
@vinagesh vinagesh deleted the feature/iot/vinagesh/swaggercommentchanges branch May 18, 2020 21:59
azabbasi added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2020
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files

* fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690)

* swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026)

* fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053)

* fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055)

* Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087)

* swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149)

* fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master

* refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code

This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default

* Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218)

* Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed

This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes

* Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make

read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too

* Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger

* Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult  (#12240)

* Modules API design (#12188)

* Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs

* Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245)

* Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296)

* Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323)

* Small API design comments fix

* feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master

* Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611)

* (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673)

* feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719)

* Add test infrastructure and setup

* Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722)

* fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695)

* fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775)

* feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787)

* IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731)

* feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests

* feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string

* fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803)

Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>

* feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819)

* Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827)

* feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850)

* feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989)

* feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997)

* Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046)

* Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091)

Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
prmathur-microsoft pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2020
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files

* fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690)

* swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026)

* fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053)

* fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055)

* Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087)

* swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149)

* fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master

* refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code

This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default

* Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218)

* Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed

This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes

* Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make

read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too

* Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger

* Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult  (#12240)

* Modules API design (#12188)

* Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs

* Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245)

* Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296)

* Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323)

* Small API design comments fix

* feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master

* Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611)

* (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673)

* feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719)

* Add test infrastructure and setup

* Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722)

* fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695)

* fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775)

* feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787)

* IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731)

* feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests

* feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string

* fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803)

Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>

* feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819)

* Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827)

* feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850)

* feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989)

* feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997)

* Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046)

* Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091)

Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants