syncing changes from 2020-06-01-preview api #12346
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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, @solankisamir 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 |
|---|---|
|
The response of operation:'TenantSettings_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimsettings.json#L91 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimtenant.json#L137 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Create' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimtenant.json#L186 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimtenant.json#L247 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantSettings_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/apimsettings.json#L91 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json#L137 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Create' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json#L186 |
|
The response of operation:'TenantAccess_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json#L247 |
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'TenantAccess_Create' Request Model: 'AccessInformationCreateParameters' Response Model: 'AccessInformationContract' New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimtenant.json#L186 |
|
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'TenantAccess_Create' Request Model: 'AccessInformationCreateParameters' Response Model: 'AccessInformationContract' New: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json#L186 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️❌ModelValidation: 2 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Additional properties not allowed: enabled Url: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/definitions.json#L56 JsonUrl: stable/2020-12-01/examples/ApiManagementGetTenantAccess.json#L11 |
|
Additional properties not allowed: enabled Url: Microsoft.ApiManagement/stable/2020-12-01/definitions.json#L56 JsonUrl: stable/2020-12-01/examples/ApiManagementUpdateTenantAccess.json#L17 |
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.5)
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimanagement.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimanagement.json
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimcertificates.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimcertificates.json
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimnamedvalues.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimnamedvalues.json
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimsettings.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimsettings.json
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/apimtenant.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json
- original: preview/2020-06-01-preview/definitions.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/definitions.json
️⚠️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version): 29 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.5)
- original: stable/2019-12-01/apimanagement.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimanagement.json
- original: stable/2019-12-01/apimcertificates.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimcertificates.json
- original: stable/2019-12-01/apimnamedvalues.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimnamedvalues.json
- original: stable/2019-12-01/apimtenant.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/apimtenant.json
- original: stable/2019-12-01/definitions.json <---> new: stable/2020-12-01/definitions.json
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @solankisamir, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
Member
Author
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @solankisamir your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). cc @qianwens |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
j5lim
requested changes
Jan 15, 2021
| "$ref": "./apimanagement.json#/parameters/ServiceNameParameter" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "$filter", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove it if is not used.
Comment on lines
+199
to
+202
| "type": "object", | ||
| "additionalProperties": { | ||
| "type": "string" | ||
| }, |
| "description": "Principal (User) Identifier." | ||
| }, | ||
| "primaryKey": { | ||
| "type": "string", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please annotate with x-ms-secret. Please apply it to all secrets in this file.
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "patch": { | ||
| "put": { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "TenantAccess" | ||
| ], | ||
| "operationId": "TenantAccess_Update", | ||
| "operationId": "TenantAccess_Create", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please update the description too.
| "required": true, | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "./definitions.json#/definitions/AccessInformationUpdateParameters" | ||
| "$ref": "./definitions.json#/definitions/AccessInformationCreateParameters" |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use the same definition for the request body and the response. PUT should return what is put in the request (except secrets). You can use read-only or x-ms-mutability to mark properties in the request or response only.
https://github.com/Azure/autorest/blob/master/docs/extensions/readme.md#x-ms-mutability
https://armwiki.azurewebsites.net/api_contracts/guidelines/rpc.html#rpc008-put-get-patch--list-must-return-the-same-resource-schema
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "patch": { | ||
| "put": { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason GET is not supported?
| "responses": { | ||
| "204": { | ||
| "description": "The secondary key was successfully regenerated." | ||
| "description": "The primary key was successfully regenerated." |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| "204": { | ||
| "description": "The secondary key was successfully regenerated." |
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "Principal (User) Identifier." | ||
| }, | ||
| "primaryKey": { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please mark all secrets in this file.
Member
Author
|
Will create another PR later |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with 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
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API 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.