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

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

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a14bf3f
Adding Id for Resource Providers path validation
dsgouda Mar 24, 2017
2be29c5
Update swagger-checklist.md
dsgouda Mar 28, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next Next commit
Adding Id for Resource Providers path validation
  • Loading branch information
@dsgouda
dsgouda authored Mar 24, 2017
commit a14bf3f497f49f7c2d15cff7b9b0e6b86c1e1ba6
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions documentation/swagger-checklist.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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.


### SHOULD

- [ ] **S2000**: If a parameter or a model property indicates that it is some "kind/type" of an artifact that can have a value from set of possible values, then it *SHOULD* have an `"enum": ["Array of possible values"]` constraint on that entity. It *MUST* also use the ["x-ms-enum"](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/swagger-extensions.md#x-ms-enum) extension. If creating an enum is not possible, then the values need to be documented in description. If the number of allowed values is huge, add a link to some kind of external documentation in the description, where those values are defined.
Expand Down