New Microsoft.Insights api version 2021-02-01-preview #13275
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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, @avjerafi 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 |
|---|---|
|
Operations API must be implemented for '/providers/Microsoft.Insights/operations'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L36 |
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isLegacyLogAnalyticsRule Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L337 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L365 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isWorkspaceAlertsStorageConfigured Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L414 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: checkWorkspaceAlertsStorageConfigured Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L419 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: skipQueryValidation Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L423 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: autoMitigate Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L427 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️⚠️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version): 6 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
️⚠️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version): 20 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.6)
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourcegroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/microsoft.insights/scheduledQueryRules/{ruleName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L37:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/microsoft.insights/scheduledQueryRules' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L229:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourcegroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/microsoft.insights/scheduledQueryRules' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L272:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'LogSearchRuleResource' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'LogSearchRuleResourcePatch' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'Source' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'Schedule' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'QueryType' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'LogSearchRule' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'LogSearchRulePatch' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L311:3 Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2018-04-16/scheduledQueryRule_API.json#L319:3 |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 8 Warnings warning [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'ScheduledQueryRuleProperties' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'ScheduledQueryRuleResourcePatch-tags' with an undefined type and additionalProperties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'ScheduledQueryRuleResourceCollection' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'Resource' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'TrackedResource' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'ErrorResponse' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"monitor/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-02-preview", "details":"Checking for duplicate schemas, this could take a (long) while. Run with --verbose for more detail." |
️❌[Staging] PrettierCheck: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Code style issues found path: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/scheduledQueryRule_API.json |
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @avjerafi your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). cc @ |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
Hi @avjerafi, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
25 tasks
This was referenced Mar 4, 2021
chiragg4u
reviewed
Mar 4, 2021
.../resource-manager/Microsoft.Insights/preview/2021-02-01-preview/examples/listOperations.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
chiragg4u
added
ARMSignedOff
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
Removed the Operations endpoint I've added, because it turns out it is already implemented by another service within Microsoft.Insights provider, at: |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
|
Please address the explanation I gave here earlier regarding the absence of an operations endpoint: it already exists and maintained elsewhere, and no changes are required for this new api version that I'm adding. I cannot and should not add the operations endpoint here. Please override the LintDiff failure result. Please let me know if there is anything else blocking the approval of this PR that I should/can address. It looks to me that none of the errors listed in the "SDK azure-sdk-for-net" has anything to do with my changes. |
|
Usually, all related json should be grouped in a single tag for completeness. This way, the operation endpoint will exist and be detected. Is there any reason why insights doing these kind of single json tag? Java SDK would need complete tag like "pacakge-2020-03" to function. @msyyc @ArcturusZhang Does Python or Go SDK has any comment on this kind of single json tag? |
weidongxu-microsoft
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2021
|
If no objection from other SDK owner, I am OK with this. Let me know the target date of this swagger (i.e. when service onboard and you need the spec merged). |
Go SDK only releases a package with full functionalities in one RP, therefore we will not make a release on this tag. |
|
@weidongxu-microsoft The target date for the swagger change is today. Thank you. |
This was referenced Mar 9, 2021
MirzaSikander
pushed a commit
to MirzaSikander/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2021
* Duplicated existing 2020-05-01-preview folder as the base for 2021-02-01-preview * Applied changes for 2021-02-01-preview * Added package tag in readme.md * Added operations to example payload * Fixed validation * Fixed prettier for listOperations * Removed operation endpoint * Appliod prettier fixes Co-authored-by: Avi Jerafi <[email protected]>
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
* Duplicated existing 2020-05-01-preview folder as the base for 2021-02-01-preview * Applied changes for 2021-02-01-preview * Added package tag in readme.md * Added operations to example payload * Fixed validation * Fixed prettier for listOperations * Removed operation endpoint * Appliod prettier fixes Co-authored-by: Avi Jerafi <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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 Breaking Change 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.