A new API version 2021-10-01 on MS.Subscription #16687
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, @Ochirkhuyag 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 |
|---|---|
| 'GET' operation 'Subscription_AcceptOwnershipStatus' should use method name 'Get' or Method name start with 'List'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L347 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'SubscriptionPolicy_AddUpdatePolicyForTenant' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L380 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L721 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L816 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L922 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L971 |
|
| 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: 'Alias_Create' Request Model: 'PutAliasRequest' Response Model: 'SubscriptionAliasResponse' Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L155 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L611 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: blockSubscriptionsLeavingTenant Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L884 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: blockSubscriptionsIntoTenant Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L888 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: allowTransfers Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L995 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: blockSubscriptionsLeavingTenant Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L1010 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: blockSubscriptionsIntoTenant Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L1014 |
|
| 'body' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L330 |
|
| 'body' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L401 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L643 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Alias_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L265 |
|
| 'body' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Subscription/stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json#L188 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️❌~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"code: InvalidResourceType, message: The resource type 'operations' could not be found in the namespace 'Microsoft.Subscription' for api version '2021-10-01'. The supported api-versions are '2017-11-01-preview'." |
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️⚠️Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 46 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.1)
- current:stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json compared with base:stable/2020-09-01/subscriptions.json
- current:stable/2021-10-01/subscriptions.json compared with base:preview/2019-10-01-preview/subscriptions.json
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
|
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @Ochirkhuyag your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
|
Hi @Ochirkhuyag, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
Ochirkhuyag
changed the title
This was referenced Nov 6, 2021
added 8 commits
November 5, 2021 19:56
…red by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter)
…quired by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter)
…erenced; required by Swagger Avocado on the PR
|
@Ochirkhuyag you will work with this week's oncall @jorgecotillo to complete your ARM review. |
jorgecotillo
reviewed
Nov 9, 2021
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-long-running-operation": true, | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "201": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Swagger validation tool (linter) required to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting, @changlong-liu do you know why the linter rule is different than ARM RPC? https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/async-api-reference.md#call-action-post-asynchronously
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nvm, after looking at your screenshot, the error because you updated your spec but did not update or added an example for this new API using the appropriate HTTP response.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @jianyexi , would you help on Jorge's question about whether the async post response should be 201 or 202?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think both 202/201 are accepted in lint for post LRO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @jianyexi!
Hi @Ochirkhuyag , since the swagger should be aligned with service implementation, want to double confirm what's the service behavior about this? 201 or 202?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The service is to accept ownership for the subscription. It is responding 202 in previous version. So, I updated it to 201 due to Swagger Validation tool (linter) requiring to change it to 201 when I validate it before the PR. But now I reverted back to 202. No changes on this. Even though Swagger Validation tool (linter) requires to change it to 201, it is okay on validation of the PR.
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-BreakingChange-Python-Track2
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
…red by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter)
jorgecotillo
added
ARMSignedOff
changlong-liu
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2021
|
merging since the breaking changes failures are about adding a type declaration while no behavior changed. |
This was referenced Nov 10, 2021
Closed
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2021
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
* Copied the last item from private repo and renamed to 2021-10-01 * Updated the version to 2021-10-01 * Error response is updated. It is required by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter) * http status response on post method is updated to 201 from 202; required by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter) * description is added in #definitions.Operation.properties.display; required by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter) * updated error response to match it previous * systemData properties are added; required by Swagger validation on the PR * updated readme.md for the new version * removed a file getSubscriptionOperation.json as long as it is not referenced; required by Swagger Avocado on the PR * Modified style by npm prettier * executed npm run prettier; required by prettier check on PR * added type:object; required by swagger LintDiff * added type:object; required by swagger LintDiff * reverted back the post response of acceptOwnership to 202 * http status response on post method is updated to 201 from 202; required by OpenAPI Validation Tools(linter) * reverted back the post response of acceptOwnership to 202 Co-authored-by: Ochi <[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
Add a changelog entry for 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
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[x] To review changes efficiently, ensure you copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the 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.