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

Microsoft.OperationalInsights: Renaming Upsert command to CreateOrUpdate (in accordance to convention) #17265

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Jan 7, 2022

Conversation

dulikvor
Copy link
Contributor

@dulikvor dulikvor commented Jan 6, 2022

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific langauge SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

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.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] 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.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @dulikvor Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

  • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected]

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Jan 6, 2022

    Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    [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.

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Jan 6, 2022

    Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi @dulikvor, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff. If you have any questions, please post your questions in this channel https://aka.ms/swaggersupport.

    TaskHow to fixPriority
    AvocadoFix-AvocadoHigh
    Semantic validationFix-SemanticValidation-ErrorHigh
    Model validationFix-ModelValidation-ErrorHigh
    LintDiffFix-LintDiffhigh
    If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback.

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi @dulikvor, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review.
    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.
    If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see ARM Traffic statistic.
    If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback.

    @msyyc
    Copy link
    Member

    msyyc commented Jan 17, 2022

    /azp run

    LeiWang3 pushed a commit to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2022
    …ate (in accordance to convention) (Azure#17265)
    
    * Microsoft.OperationalInsights: tables privatepreview
    
    * Microsoft.OperationalInsights: tables privatepreview
    
    * Microsoft.OperationalInsights: tables privatepreview
    
    * code review changes.
    
    * Update Tables.json
    
    * Update Tables.json
    
    * OperationalManagement: 2021-12-01-preview
    
    * more fixes.
    
    * Update Clusters.json
    
    * Tables: Sentinel+CLV2 changes.
    
    * Tables: More descriptions.
    
    * removing un related child resources.
    
    * Create OperationsListByTenant.json
    
    * Update Tables.json
    
    * Update TablesGet.json
    
    * Add systemData example.
    
    * Model fixes + pretty
    
    * adding description to ip data hint.
    
    * Update Tables.json
    
    * Microsoft.OperationalInsights: Updating package reference list.
    
    * Tables: Changing operation description.
    
    * removing in correct read only indication.
    
    Co-authored-by: Dudi Likvornik <[email protected]>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    3 participants