[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.DataProtection to add version stable/2023-11-01

[asmitt]

This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

PR review workflow diagram

Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.

[1] ARM review queue (for merge queues, see [4])
The PRs are processed by time opened, ascending. Your PR may show up on 2nd or later page.
If you addressed Step 1 from the diagram and your PR is not showing up in the queue, ensure the label ARMChangesRequested
is removed from your PR. This should cause the label WaitForARMFeedback to be added.
[2] https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel
[3] List of SDK breaking changes approvers in pinned Teams announcement
[4] public repo merge queue, private repo merge queue (for ARM review queue, [1])

If you need further help with anything, see Getting help section below.

Purpose of this PR

What's the purpose of this PR? Check all that apply. This is mandatory!

• New API version. (Such PR should have been generated with OpenAPI Hub).
• Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
• Update existing version to fix swagger quality issues in S360.
• Other, please clarify:
  • edit this with your clarification

Due diligence checklist

To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:

• I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
• I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
  ARM resource provider contract and
  REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
  I understand this is required before I can proceed to Step 2, "ARM Review", for this PR.

Breaking changes review (Step 1)

• If the automation determines you have breaking changes, i.e. Step 1 from the diagram applies to you,
  you must follow the breaking changes process.
  IMPORTANT This applies even if:
  • The tool fails while it shouldn't, e.g. due to runtime exception, or incorrect detection of breaking changes.
  • You believe there is no need for you to request breaking change approval, for any reason.
    Such claims must be reviewed, and the process is the same.

ARM API changes review (Step 2)

• If this PR is in purview of ARM review then automation will add the ARMReview label.
• If you want to force ARM review, add the label yourself.
• Proceed according to the diagram at the top of this comment.

Viewing API changes

For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.

Suppressing failures

If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
Swagger-Suppression-Process
to get approval.

Getting help

• For general PR approval workflow, see the diagram at the top of this comment.
• For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
  and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
• If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Next Steps to Merge

✔️ All automated merging requirements have been met! Refer to step 4 in the PR workflow diagram (even if your PR is for data plane, not ARM).

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️⚠️Breaking Change(Cross-Version): 22 Warnings warning [Detail]

compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)]	new version	base version
dataprotection.json	2023-11-01(1fead77)	2023-08-01(main)
dataprotection.json	2023-11-01(1fead77)	2023-08-01-preview(main)

The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:

Rule	Message
⚠️ 1005 - RemovedPath	The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataProtection/backupVaults/{vaultName}/backupInstances/{backupInstanceName}/validateForModifyBackup' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1369:5
⚠️ 1005 - RemovedPath	The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/{resourceId}/providers/Microsoft.DataProtection/backupInstances' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1965:5
⚠️ 1005 - RemovedPath	The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataProtection/backupVaults/{vaultName}/backupJobs/{jobId}/triggerCancel' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2729:5
⚠️ 1005 - RemovedPath	The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.DataProtection/backupVaults/{vaultName}/backupJobs/{jobId}/generateProgressUrl' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2793:5
⚠️ 1006 - RemovedDefinition	The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'CmkKeyVaultProperties' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L4089:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4333:3
⚠️ 1006 - RemovedDefinition	The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'CmkKekIdentity' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L4089:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4333:3
⚠️ 1006 - RemovedDefinition	The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'encryptionSettings' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L4089:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4333:3
⚠️ 1006 - RemovedDefinition	The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'ValidateForModifyBackupRequest' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L4089:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4333:3
⚠️ 1007 - RemovedClientParameter	The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L8098:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L8427:3
⚠️ 1007 - RemovedClientParameter	The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'RestrictedVaultName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L8098:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L8427:3
⚠️ 1008 - ModifiedOperationId	The operation id has been changed from 'SecondaryRPs_Fetch' to 'FetchSecondaryRecoveryPoints_List'. This will impact generated code. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1538:7 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1620:7
⚠️ 1008 - ModifiedOperationId	The operation id has been changed from 'CrossRegionRestoreJob_Get' to 'FetchCrossRegionRestoreJob_Get'. This will impact generated code. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1762:7 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1851:7
⚠️ 1008 - ModifiedOperationId	The operation id has been changed from 'CrossRegionRestoreJobs_List' to 'FetchCrossRegionRestoreJobs_List'. This will impact generated code. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1816:7 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1907:7
⚠️ 1017 - ReferenceRedirection	The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1669:13 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1756:13
⚠️ 1017 - ReferenceRedirection	The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: common-types/resource-management/v5/types.json#L307:9 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5805:9
⚠️ 1017 - ReferenceRedirection	The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: common-types/resource-management/v5/types.json#L282:11 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L6538:11
⚠️ 1017 - ReferenceRedirection	The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1745:13 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1834:13
⚠️ 1023 - TypeFormatChanged	The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L7106:9 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L7428:9
⚠️ 1023 - TypeFormatChanged	The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L7111:9 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L7432:9
⚠️ 1033 - RemovedProperty	The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'encryptionSettings' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L7543:7 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L7856:7
⚠️ 1033 - RemovedProperty	The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'sourceDataStoreType' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L4343:7 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4575:7
⚠️ 1042 - ChangedParameterOrder	The order of parameter 'parameters' was changed. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1825:9 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-08-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1915:9

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️❌LintDiff: 3 Errors, 3 Warnings failed [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.6)	new version	base version
package-2023-11	package-2023-11(1fead77)	default(main)

[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message	Related RPC [For API reviewers]
❌ ParametersInPost	$filter is a query parameter. Post operation must not contain any query parameter other than api-version. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1547	RPC-Post-V1-05
❌ ParametersInPost	$skipToken is a query parameter. Post operation must not contain any query parameter other than api-version. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1547	RPC-Post-V1-05
❌ ParametersInPost	$filter is a query parameter. Post operation must not contain any query parameter other than api-version. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1825	RPC-Post-V1-05
⚠️ PostOperationIdContainsUrlVerb	OperationId should contain the verb: 'fetchsecondaryrecoverypoints' in:'FetchSecondaryRecoveryPoints_List'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1543
⚠️ PostOperationIdContainsUrlVerb	OperationId should contain the verb: 'fetchcrossregionrestorejob' in:'FetchCrossRegionRestoreJob_Get'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1767
⚠️ PostOperationIdContainsUrlVerb	OperationId should contain the verb: 'fetchcrossregionrestorejobs' in:'FetchCrossRegionRestoreJobs_List'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1821

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink	Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L42
❌ LroExtension	Operations with a 202 response must specify x-ms-long-running-operation: true. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L64
❌ ParametersOrder	The parameters:operationId,location should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L64
❌ GetOperation200	The get operation should only return 200. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L94
❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink	Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L307
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L426
❌ DeleteResponseCodes	Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L440
❌ LroLocationHeader	A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L467
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L476
❌ LroLocationHeader	A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L526
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L532
❌ LroExtension	Operations with a 202 response must specify x-ms-long-running-operation: true. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L545
❌ GetOperation200	The get operation should only return 200. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L580
❌ OperationsApiSchemaUsesCommonTypes	Operations API path must follow the schema provided in the common types. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L740
❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink	Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L788
❌ PutResponseCodes	Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L860
❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink	Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L996
❌ PutResponseCodes	Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1064
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1128
❌ DeleteResponseCodes	Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1139
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1193
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1269
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1345
❌ LroExtension	Operations with a 202 response must specify x-ms-long-running-operation: true. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1361
❌ OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'BackupInstances' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1366
❌ GetOperation200	The get operation should only return 200. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1400
❌ LroLocationHeader	A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1400
❌ GetCollectionOnlyHasValueAndNextLink	Get endpoints for collections of resources must only have the value and nextLink properties in their model. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1461
❌ PostResponseCodes	Long-running POST operations must have responses with 202 and default return codes. They must also have a 200 return code if only if the final response is intended to have a schema, if not the 200 return code must not be specified. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1880
❌ LroErrorContent	Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2023-11-01/dataprotection.json#L1937

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Summary.

️️✔️Automated merging requirements met succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌SDK Breaking Change Tracking failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-sdk-for-net-track2 failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-js succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-powershell failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Generated ApiView

Language	Package Name	ApiView Link
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/dataprotection/armdataprotection	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/3389f383914844e6b7755c34b6f581e2
Java	azure-resourcemanager-dataprotection	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/e41ee338de46453a91fab82832d7a20e
JavaScript	@azure/arm-dataprotection	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/4b579407c9a241ac901a90dad8ea4b0c
Swagger	Microsoft.DataProtection	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/6261f49b604e4b30bd85fde1f9e0a16b

[asmitt]

This PR moves APIs from previous preview version to stable along with few additional changes

[asmitt]

Preview PR Link: #23391

[tarsharm]

Make sure there are no int Diff errors and automated merging requirements are met.

[TimLovellSmith]

I don't know that this has ever been formalized as a guidelines, but I think you can make an argument that POST parameters aren't really intended to use filters and paging in the URL because they're not collections, or at least they don't seem like it in terms of the conventions of the ARM resource model.

For instance we explicitly disallow such patterns with 'point GET', the GET of a single resource.
In this case, this is a 'point POST', the POST of an action on a single (location) resource.

Also the filtering seems sort of mandatory instead of optional in terms of the API design. So I would be happier to recommend changing to pass in the body (and reconsider whether even naming them things like 'filter' is really what you want to do.)

What are you supposed to be filtering on by the way?

[asmitt]

I don't know that this has ever been formalized as a guidelines, but I think you can make an argument that POST parameters aren't really intended to use filters and paging in the URL because they're not collections, or at least they don't seem like it in terms of the conventions of the ARM resource model.

For instance we explicitly disallow such patterns with 'point GET', the GET of a single resource. In this case, this is a 'point POST', the POST of an action on a single (location) resource.

Also the filtering seems sort of mandatory instead of optional in terms of the API design. So I would be happier to recommend changing to pass in the body (and reconsider whether even naming them things like 'filter' is really what you want to do.)

What are you supposed to be filtering on by the way?

@TimLovellSmith The API returns list of long running jobs for the resource. Filter allows to filter these based on fields like status and startTime. Filters are not mandatory and are optional.
We wanted to keep filters in query parameters to maintain to parity with another API , fetchRecoverySecondaryPoints, which is also a POST request with query parameters (ARM approved during preview swagger PR) and another similar API in on of other RP.

FetchRecoverySecondaryPoints API: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/dataprotection/resource-manager/Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-04-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1531C5-L1605C5
Similar API in other RP: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/ec238f30bd6d4a0681b691908fe00b54868467de/specification/recoveryservicesbackup/resource-manager/Microsoft.RecoveryServices/stable/2023-01-15/bms.json#L275C9-L275C9

[TimLovellSmith]

I don't know that this has ever been formalized as a guidelines, but I think you can make an argument that POST parameters aren't really intended to use filters and paging in the URL because they're not collections, or at least they don't seem like it in terms of the conventions of the ARM resource model.
For instance we explicitly disallow such patterns with 'point GET', the GET of a single resource. In this case, this is a 'point POST', the POST of an action on a single (location) resource.
Also the filtering seems sort of mandatory instead of optional in terms of the API design. So I would be happier to recommend changing to pass in the body (and reconsider whether even naming them things like 'filter' is really what you want to do.)
What are you supposed to be filtering on by the way?

@TimLovellSmith The API returns list of long running jobs for the resource. Filter allows to filter these based on fields like status and startTime. Filters are not mandatory and are optional. We wanted to keep filters in query parameters to maintain to parity with another API , fetchRecoverySecondaryPoints, which is also a POST request with query parameters (ARM approved during preview swagger PR) and another similar API in on of other RP.

FetchRecoverySecondaryPoints API: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/dataprotection/resource-manager/Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2023-04-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1531C5-L1605C5 Similar API in other RP: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/ec238f30bd6d4a0681b691908fe00b54868467de/specification/recoveryservicesbackup/resource-manager/Microsoft.RecoveryServices/stable/2023-01-15/bms.json#L275C9-L275C9

Thanks for the explanation. This use case sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[TimLovellSmith]

To satiate the linter warnings, can 'FetchSecondaryRecoveryPoints' operation be renamed to 'SecondaryRecoveryPoints_List'?

[TimLovellSmith]

There does seem to be a notable downside of making all those POST 'fetch secondary region data' APIs POST verbs, to me: you need more than just read access in order to use them. Is that going to be okay for your user's use cases?

[TimLovellSmith]

Can you please add suppressions for the filters in POST linter errors

[asmitt]

/pr RequestMerge

[raosuhas]

@TimLovellSmith have you reviewed the suppressions already ? If so can you add the tag for the suppression approval since it is blocking the automated merge requirements ?

[asmitt]

@raosuhas can we merge this PR?

[hiaga]

/pr RequestMerge