Users/sharathm/putmodelapi

[sharathmalladi]

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:

• I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
• I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
• Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and errors have all been fixed in this PR. How to fix?

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
    -[X] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.

• 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]

Hi, @sharathmalladi 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-workflow-bot]

[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-workflow-bot]

Hi, @sharathmalladi your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]).

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

• Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.12.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.2.2 )
  • data-plane/Personalizer/readme.md tag:release_1_1_preview.3
• Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.12.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.2.2 )
  • data-plane/Personalizer/readme.md tag:default

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Rule	Message
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ServiceConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ServiceConfiguration' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L20
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ServiceConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ServiceConfiguration' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L46
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ServiceConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ServiceConfiguration' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L434

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 1 Errors, 3 Warnings failed [Detail]

• Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
  • current:preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json compared with base:stable/v1.0/Personalizer.json
  • current:preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json compared with base:preview/v1.1-preview.2/Personalizer.json

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

Rule	Message
❌ 1011 - AddingResponseCode	The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L644:11
⚠️ 1026 - TypeChanged	The new version has a different type 'object' than the previous one ''. New: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L1450:9 Old: Personalizer/stable/v1.0/Personalizer.json#L927:9
⚠️ 1026 - TypeChanged	The new version has a different type 'object' than the previous one ''. New: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L1597:9 Old: Personalizer/stable/v1.0/Personalizer.json#L1036:9

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

Rule	Message
⚠️ 1011 - AddingResponseCode	The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Personalizer/preview/v1.1-preview.3/Personalizer.json#L644:11

️️✔️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
• cognitiveservices/data-plane/Personalizer/readme.md#release_1_1_preview.3

️️✔️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).

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

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

 Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account. 

️️✔️SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Breaking Changes Tracking

️✔️azure-sdk-for-go - personalizer/v1.0/personalizer - v61.5.0

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

• ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 0f3093e. SDK Automation 14.0.0

  command	sh scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initOutput.json
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] ERROR: pip's dependency resolver does not currently take into account all the packages that are installed. This behaviour is the source of the following dependency conflicts.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-mgmt-core 1.3.0 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.15.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] ERROR: pip's dependency resolver does not currently take into account all the packages that are installed. This behaviour is the source of the following dependency conflicts.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] opencensus-ext-azure 1.1.1 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.12.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-mgmt-core 1.3.0 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.15.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-identity 1.7.1 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.11.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] WARNING: Skipping azure-nspkg as it is not installed.
  command	sh scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateOutput.json
  cmderr	[automation_generate.sh]
  cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice New minor version of npm available! 8.3.1 -> 8.5.0
  cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice Changelog: <https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v8.5.0>
  cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice Run `npm install -g [email protected]` to update!
  cmderr	[automation_generate.sh] npm notice

• ️✔️azure-cognitiveservices-personalizer [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]
  • azure_cognitiveservices_personalizer-0.1.0-py2.py3-none-any.whl
  • azure-cognitiveservices-personalizer-0.1.0.zip

  info	[Changelog] data-plan skip changelog generation temporarily

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-go warning [Detail]

• ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 0f3093e. SDK Automation 14.0.0

  command	sh ./eng/initScript.sh ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/initInput.json ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/initOutput.json
  command	generator automation ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/generateInput.json ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/generateOutput.json
  cmderr	[generator automation] [WARNING] line in batch '' does not starts with 'tags', ignore

• ️✔️personalizer/v1.0/personalizer [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]

  info	[Changelog] ### Other Changes
  info	[Changelog]
  info	[Changelog] Total 0 breaking change(s), 0 additive change(s).

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-js warning [Detail]

• ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 0f3093e. SDK Automation 14.0.0

  command	sh .scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initOutput.json
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh]  deprecated [email protected]: The functionality that this package provided is now in @npmcli/arborist
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh]  [email protected]: Please upgrade  to version 7 or higher.  Older versions may use Math.random() in certain circumstances, which is known to be problematic.  See https://v8.dev/blog/math-random for details.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] deprecated @opentelemetry/[email protected]: Package renamed to @opentelemetry/api, see https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-js
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh]  created a lockfile as package-lock.json. You should commit this file.
  cmderr	[automation_init.sh] npm WARN @octokit/[email protected] requires a peer of @octokit/core@>=3 but none is installed. You must install peer dependencies yourself.
  warn	File azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initOutput.json not found to read
  command	sh .scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/generateOutput.json

• ️✔️@azure/cognitiveservices-personalizer [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]

  error	breakingChangeTracking is enabled, but version or changelogItem is not found in output.

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

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @sharathmalladi, 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.

Task	How to fix	Priority
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback.

[j5lim]

Data plane API does not need ARM review.

[tjprescott]

Please resolve the issues in #16982 and have the API Review Board update this PR as signed off.

[sharathmalladi]

@mikekistler , please review the fixes and merge the PR.

Note in regards to the checks that are failing:
The checks that are failing on the PR are expected since they are improvements over the previous version and the checks are too aggressive. Two of the failures (Rule 1026) were discussed during the meeting and we were told that the API review team can manually override them. The third one is because I was following guidance to add a default error response (Rule 1011).

[mikekistler]

Looks good! 👍

[tjprescott]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[tjprescott]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).