Fix Lint issues in ContainerApps.json #24107
Conversation
|
Hi, @Zijian-Ju 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
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| ContainerApps.json | 2023-04-01-preview(7690350) | 2022-10-01(main) |
| ContainerApps.json | 2023-04-01-preview(7690350) | 2022-11-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'workloadProfileType' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L691:11 Old: Microsoft.App/stable/2022-10-01/ContainerApps.json#L541:11 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.2) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-preview-2023-04 | package-preview-2023-04(7690350) | package-preview-2023-04(release-app-Microsoft.App-2023-04-01-preview) |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The resource name parameter 'containerAppName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L99 |
|
Invalid status code specified. Please refer to the documentation for the allowed set. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L131 |
|
Description of 200 response code of a PUT operation MUST include term 'update'. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L182 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L198 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L261 |
|
The patch operation body parameter schema should not contains property name. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L296 |
|
The patch operation body parameter schema should not contains property type. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L296 |
|
The patch operation body parameter schema should not contains property location. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L296 |
|
Properties of a PATCH request body must not be required, property:location. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L301 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L327 |
|
The resource name parameter 'containerAppName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L339 |
|
customHostname is a query parameter. Post operation must not contain any query parameter other than api-version. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L346 |
|
The resource name parameter 'containerAppName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L391 |
|
The resource name parameter 'containerAppName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L437 |
|
Invalid status code specified. Please refer to the documentation for the allowed set. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L469 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L531 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L590 |
| The summary and description values should not be same. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L148 |
|
| The summary and description values should not be same. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L218 |
|
| 200 response schema in long running DELETE operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO DELETE operations 200 response schema must have ProvisioningState specified. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L244 |
|
| The x-ms-long-running-operation-options should be specified explicitly to indicate the type of response header to track the async operation. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L275 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L799 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L850 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L865 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L915 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L930 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L1048 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L1163 |
|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L1178 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/ContainerApps.json#L1197 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for CadlValidation.
️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Generated ApiView
|
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
|
Hi @Zijian-Ju, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @Zijian-Ju, 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. |
|
The breaking change is introduced in previous preview version: 2022-11-01-preview. It has been approved in https://msazure.visualstudio.com/One/_workitems/edit/16986590. Seems like it is detected as we modified the same file.
|
@Zijian-Ju ,can you give a swagger pr link which approved the breaking change?thanks |
Sure. Here is the PR: #22423, Thanks |
I don't think this breaking is from above pr: |
Sorry, here is the correct PR: #22380. They shared the same breaking change approval, |
kazrael2119
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
add "Approved-BreakingChange" label because it has been approved from above pr |
kazrael2119
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Hi @kazrael2119 , I am wondering what else steps are needed for merging the PR? |
Can you fix above review? After you update it , If there are no other error or failed，it can be merged |
|
May I ask which review you are referring? As the only review I can find is from you "skip sdk breaking change review because it is not caused by this pr" |
|
Hi @kazrael2119 we are submitting this change since our PR #24103 to main branch is blocked by the LROErrorContent lint issue: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/24103/checks?check_run_id=13679052730. We prefer to use our self-defined error response as unified one (which is ./CommonDefinitions.json#/definitions/DefaultErrorResponse). Do you know how can we bypass this check in our PR to main branch? Add @howang-ms , and @Juliehzl into discussion |
|
@Zijian-Ju , If you want to merge this pr first, and update these in #24103 later, I think it may be good too. |
It will also block the merge for #24103. So, it's better to consolidate them. |
Thanks @kazrael2119 for explanation. But I am a bit confused about what you mean by "So if you want to use your self-defined error response, please update all service, not only ContainerApps.". Does it mean we have to add our self-defined error response under common-types/resource-management/v5/** folder and reference that one if we would like to keep using it? Or we may still be blocked by the SDK generation even if I keep using the DefaultErrorResponse? |
No, I mean you should change all NOTICE: If you use v5, then all versions must be v5, not some v3 and some v5 |
Sorry my previous expression may cause some confusion. :et me clarify, I mean we would like to keep using ./CommonDefinitions.json#/definitions/DefaultErrorResponse for all of our API response. But when I did it for my new API: |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
commitAfterSignedOff
and removed
Approved-OkToMerge
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
kazrael2119
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.App from version preview/2022-11-01-preview to version 2023-04-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * support terminationGracePeriodSeconds (#23476) * Support SubPath in volume mount and mount options for azure file volume (#23496) * Support SubPath in volume mount and mount options for azure file volume * update description * Add replica/container running state (#23617) * add replica/container running state * spell error fix * add event trigger for Container Jobs 2023-04-01-preview (#23724) * add event trigger for Container Jobs 2023-04-01-preview * prettier and avocado fix --------- Co-authored-by: Taher Darolywala <[email protected]> * Resolve Comments for Event driven jobs (#23729) * Resolve Comments for Event driven jobs * change scaling rule to azure-servicebus * update example --------- Co-authored-by: Taher Darolywala <[email protected]> * Swagger change for mtls and runningState (#23767) * 1. Add mtls properties for managed ManagedEnvironment 2. Add running state for Revision * fix * Add ContainerApp Start/Stop for 2023-04-01-preview (#23497) * Add ContainerApp Start/Stop for 2023-04-01-preview * Fix validation error * Fix validation error * Change example to add location in header * Fix lint error * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Fix lint issue * Add new source controls properties (#23891) * Add new source controls properties * Update examples * fix examples * Change event trigger replica properties to executions, add polling in… (#23810) * Change event trigger replica properties to executions, add polling interval to event trigger, fix typos and descriptions to accommodate both apps and jobs * Fix validation errors * code review comments * Fix formatting errors * Code review comments * Add single execution history endpoint, refactor copy paste code for j… (#23816) * Add single execution history endpoint, refactor copy paste code for jobName and jobExecutionName path parameters * Fix validation errors from ARM * Fix validation errors * Code review comments * Fix validation error * code review comments from Anand * Add springboard properties (#23932) * Add springboard properties * CR comments * Update specification/app/resource-manager/Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/examples/ContainerApps_CreateOrUpdate.json Co-authored-by: Jitin John <[email protected]> * Update specification/app/resource-manager/Microsoft.App/preview/2023-04-01-preview/examples/ContainerApps_CreateOrUpdate.json Co-authored-by: Jitin John <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Jitin John <[email protected]> * Fix Lint issues in ContainerApps.json (#24107) * Fix lint issue * Fix format issue * Fix json format issue * Fix model validation * Fix lint error * fix param (#24166) Co-authored-by: Chenghui Yu <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Zunli Hu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: njucz <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: LaylaLiu-gmail <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Xingjian Wang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Taher Daroly <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Taher Darolywala <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: zhenqxuMSFT <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zijian-Ju <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanchit Mehta <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: trajkobal <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ahmed ElSayed <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jitin John <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Seris370 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chenghui Yu <[email protected]>
ARM API Information (Control Plane)
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):
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 the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.
-[ ] 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. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For more details refer to the wiki. Note that this doesn't apply if you are trying to merge a PR that was previously in the private repository.
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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.
NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.