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

Add guidance for types which should not have new structural properties #537

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jun 4, 2024

Conversation

tylercleveland2
Copy link
Contributor

Adding guidance that there should not be new structural properties added to user, group, device.

@tylercleveland2 tylercleveland2 marked this pull request as ready for review March 22, 2024 22:28
@tylercleveland2 tylercleveland2 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 22, 2024 22:28
@tylercleveland2 tylercleveland2 added the Graph Guidelines This should be reviewed by Microsoft Grap team. label Mar 22, 2024
@corranrogue9
Copy link
Contributor

@microsoft/graphguidelinesapprovers would someone else like to take a look at this guidance?

@tylercleveland2
Copy link
Contributor Author

tylercleveland2 commented Apr 11, 2024

Pinging @microsoft/graphguidelinesapprovers for a review

@@ -332,6 +333,15 @@ For a complete mapping of error codes to HTTP statuses, see

<a name="api-contract-and-non-backward-compatible-changes"></a>

### Limitations on core types
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we add this guidance for applications and servicePrincipals too? In my mind those are core types.

We actually now have a very real example of why this is important for downstream tooling. Adding a structural property that is handled by a different workload (from the core workload) is really difficult to model with Bicep. If instead it's added as a new entity + nav property, this fits cleanly with Bicep (and ARM's) nested child resources.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adding a structural property that is handled by a different workload (from the core workload)

FYI, I think we have a different ADR that says we should stop using composite entities.

I'm ok adding applications and servicePrincipals, but I don't think those have been brought up with the API council. Do we want to take this PR as-is and do a follow-up to add apps and sps after discussion with the council?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am inclined to take Garrett's suggestion. If you are fine with this, I will merge as-is @dkershaw10

Copy link
Contributor

@dkershaw10 dkershaw10 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, but added some suggestions. You might want to discuss with other folks whether apps and SPs should be classed as core types (IMHO they are, but you should check).

Use proper noun name for graph product
Rename `bankAccountInformation` to `bankAccountDetail`
Fix grammar
Add link to nav prop article
Update to `existing core types`
Update description of core types in overview to addd "intrinsic"
@tylercleveland2 tylercleveland2 merged commit 36e6d85 into vNext Jun 4, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Graph Guidelines This should be reviewed by Microsoft Grap team.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants