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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Adding Id for Resource Providers path validation #1068

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 28, 2017
Merged

Adding Id for Resource Providers path validation #1068

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 28, 2017

Conversation

dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

@dsgouda dsgouda commented Mar 24, 2017 •
edited by azuresdkci
Loading

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

  • I have read the contribution guidelines.
  • My spec meets the review criteria:
    • The spec conforms to the Swagger 2.0 specification.
    • Validation errors from the Linter extension for VS Code have all been fixed for this spec. (Note: for large, previously checked in specs, there will likely be many errors shown. Please contact our team so we can set a timeframe for fixing these errors if your PR is not going to address them).
    • The spec follows the patterns described in the Swagger good patterns document unless the service API makes this impossible.

@dsgouda dsgouda requested a review from veronicagg March 24, 2017 22:02
@jhendrixMSFT jhendrixMSFT removed their assignment Mar 24, 2017
@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Python

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Ruby

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for NodeJS

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsgouda commented Mar 27, 2017

@azuresdkci Test this please

1 similar comment
@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsgouda commented Mar 28, 2017

@azuresdkci Test this please

veronicagg
veronicagg approved these changes Mar 28, 2017
View reviewed changes
documentation/swagger-checklist.md Outdated
@@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ For example, [NetworkInterface.ipConfigurations](https://github.com/Azure/azure-

- :white_check_mark: **M2060**: x-ms-pageable operations must have a 200 response defined.

- :white_check_mark: **M2061**: URLs should have parameterized resource type values instead of defaults.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we want to put more than this in the documentation, can you write down the pattern for the URL and indicate what you're referring to as type values versus other parts of the path? Also, it'd be good to write (at least in parenthesis) the name of the rule (ProvidersPathValidation) I think it makes it easier to identify for swagger authors and reviewers (numbers are just not as easy to remember and could change). Feel free to consult with Kirthi as well if needed.

veronicagg
veronicagg suggested changes Mar 28, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@veronicagg veronicagg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sorry, meant to request changes.

@dsgouda
Update swagger-checklist.md
2be29c5 
Addressed PR comments
@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Ruby

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for NodeJS

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Python

veronicagg
veronicagg approved these changes Mar 28, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@veronicagg veronicagg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's start with that, but it's still kind of cryptic in my opinion from an outsider's perspective, we'll work on making that better afterwards, at least we add the rule for now.

@dsgouda dsgouda merged commit a204c98 into master Mar 28, 2017
@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Ruby

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for Python

@AutorestCI
Copy link

No modification for NodeJS

@dsgouda dsgouda deleted the dsgouda-patch-2 branch April 14, 2017 18:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@veronicagg veronicagg veronicagg approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@dsgouda @AutorestCI @veronicagg @msftclas @jhendrixMSFT