[Hub Generated] Review request for Route to add version preview/2023-10-01-preview #24987
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
Swagger Validation Report
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| route.json | 2023-10-01-preview(93b4c99) | 2023-09-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 4 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.6) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-preview-2023-10 | package-preview-2023-10(93b4c99) | default(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
| Property should have a defined type. Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L786 |
||
| Property should have a defined type. Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L791 |
||
| Property should have a defined type. Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L934 |
||
| Property should have a defined type. Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L939 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
Error schema should define code and message properties as required.Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L120 |
|
| Operation might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L135 |
|
Error schema should define code and message properties as required.Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L182 |
|
| 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: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L292 |
|
| 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: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L1729 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Route/preview/2023-10-01-preview/route.json#L1978 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️️✔️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).
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
️️✔️Automated merging requirements met succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
|
Hi, @koyasu221b! Thank you for your pull request. To help get your PR merged: Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff. |
|
PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. This comment will be populated with the 'Swagger Generation Artifacts' report |
Generated ApiView
|
Next Steps to Merge✔️ All automated merging requirements have been met! Refer to step 4 in the PR workflow diagram (even if your PR is for data plane, not ARM). |
|
Automatic PR validation restarted. This comment will be populated with next steps to merge this PR once validation is completed. Please wait ⌛. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Swagger Validation Report
|
FarazGIS
reviewed
Sep 20, 2023
| @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "value": "fastestAvoidClosureWithoutTraffic", | |||
| "name": "FastestAvoidClosureWithoutTraffic", | |||
| "description": "The route is calculated to minimize the time and avoid road closures. No traffic information except for road closures is used in the calculation." | |||
| "description": "The route is calculated to minimize the time and avoid road closures. No traffic information except for road closures is used in the calculation. `Note`: Only supported for driving and walking travelMode." | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@koyasu221b Can you please check if Bing routing gives a response for walking for fastestAvoidClosureWithoutTraffic
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, thanks for noticing this. I'll update it in the next commit.
FarazGIS
reviewed
Sep 25, 2023
| "value": "highways", | ||
| "description": "Avoids the use of highways in the route. `Note`: Only supported for driving travelMode." | ||
| "value": "limitedAccessHighway", | ||
| "description": "Avoids the use of limited access highway in the route. `Note`: Only supported for driving and truck travelMode." | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@koyasu221b We don't need to mention only supported for driving and truck if it's supported for both travel modes like ferries and toll road as it is implied that avoid highways would not be applicable to walking.
winest
requested changes
Sep 27, 2023
| @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ | |||
| "items": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
example at line 297 also need to be updated
| @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ | |||
| "items": { | |||
| "type": "string", | |||
| "enum": [ | |||
| "highways", | |||
| "limitedAccessHighway", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
limitedAccessHighway"s" for consistency with others
added 8 commits
September 27, 2023 13:32
winest
requested changes
Oct 4, 2023
After our discussion, we think it's not required |
winest
approved these changes
Oct 6, 2023
koyasu221b
requested review from
markweitzel and
JeffreyRichter
and removed request for
a team
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2023
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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
Data Plane API - Pull Request
API Info: The Basics
Most of the information about your service should be captured in the issue that serves as your API Spec engagement record.
Is this review for (select one):
Change Scope
This section will help us focus on the specific parts of your API that are new or have been modified.
Please share a link to the design document for the new APIs, a link to the previous API Spec document (if applicable), and the root paths that have been updated.
❔Got questions? Need additional info?? We are here to help!
Contact us!
The Azure API Review Board is dedicated to helping you create amazing APIs. You can read about our mission and learn more about our process on our wiki.
Click here for links to tools, specs, guidelines & other good stuff
Tooling
Guidelines & Specifications
Helpful Links