Adding list reservations API to Microsoft.Capacity #14849
Merged
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
|
Hi, @toddm 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. vsswagger@microsoft.com |
|
[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. |
|
Hi, @toddm your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Since operation 'ReservationOrder_ChangeDirectory' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L831 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2436 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: archived Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1946 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2424 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isTaxIncluded Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2587 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isSucceeded Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2664 |
|
| 'capabilities' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1216 |
|
| 'SkuCapability' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1225 |
|
| 'ChangeDirectoryRequest' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2628 |
|
| 'reservations' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2644 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Catalog Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L756 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Capacity/resourceProviders/{providerId}/locations/{location}/serviceLimits/{resourceName} has different responses for PUT/GET/PATCH operations. The PUT/GET/PATCH operations must have same schema response. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L37 |
|
Enum must define its type and 'object' type is not allowed due to Autorest refuse to parse it. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L742 |
|
Enum must define its type and 'object' type is not allowed due to Autorest refuse to parse it. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L756 |
|
The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L415 |
|
The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L419 |
|
The integer type does not have a format, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L513 |
|
The schema 'ResourceName' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L449 |
|
The schema 'QuotaLimits' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L464 |
|
The schema 'QuotaLimitsResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L480 |
| 'PUT' operation 'ReservationOrder_Purchase' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L234 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1022 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1043 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1052 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1524 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1558 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1712 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1747 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1891 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1911 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2549 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L405 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L443 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L589 |
|
| A LRO Post operation with return schema must have 'x-ms-long-running-operation-options' extension enabled. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L30 |
|
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'Quota_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'CurrentQuotaLimitBase' Response Model: 'QuotaRequestOneResourceSubmitResponse' Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2020-10-25/quota.json#L87 |
|
| The summary and description values should not be same. Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L31 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'calculateprice' in:'ReservationOrder_Calculate'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L160 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'calculateexchange' in:'CalculateExchange_Post'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L638 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'exchange' in:'Exchange_Post'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L697 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: valid Location: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1580 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/reservations/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/reservations/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2021-07-01 |
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 4 Errors, 9 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.0)
- current:stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json compared with base:stable/2017-11-01/reservations.json
- current:stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json compared with base:preview/2020-10-01-preview/reservations.json
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1275:9 Old: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2017-11-01/reservations.json#L705:9 |
|
The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L1506:9 Old: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2017-11-01/reservations.json#L785:9 |
|
The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L339:9 Old: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2017-11-01/reservations.json#L191:9 |
|
The new version has a different format than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2021-07-01/reservations.json#L2236:11 Old: Microsoft.Capacity/stable/2017-11-01/reservations.json#L919:11 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 2 Warnings warning [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| "readme":"reservations/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-07-01", "details":"The enum schema 'ResourceType' with an undefined type and enum values is ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:string'" |
|
| "readme":"reservations/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-07-01", "details":"The enum schema 'QuotaRequestState' with an undefined type and enum values is ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:string'" |
|
| 💬 AutorestCore/Exception | "readme":"reservations/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-07-01", "details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0)" |
| 💬 AutorestCore/Exception | "readme":"reservations/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-07-01", "details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)" |
| 💬 AutorestCore/Exception | "readme":"reservations/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-07-01", "details":"> Loading AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.15.456->4.15.456)" |
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Jun 16, 2021
This was referenced Jun 16, 2021
|
Thank you for copying the existing version into new folder for first commit. It helps in reviewing the change. |
|
From the changes I don't see new API being added and lots of changes in terms of removing enum's etc. Please confirm if this is expected. |
|
I also see you've not copied all the paths in the new version, it will break your SDK's/CLI/PS. It's also highlighted in some of the automated checks, please closely review the automated checks and resolve. |
|
Changes looks good from ARM perspective, please follow the process given @ https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/212/Swagger-PR-Review to continue |
|
Hi @toddm, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This reverts commit 5a6c783.
The paths are ready to merge into stable. I put Do Not Merge in the title because we are still deploying the api-version and will then update the manifest, but it's otherwise ready. |
ArcturusZhang
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2021
toddm
changed the title
|
@jianyexi We have made all of the necessary changes to support the new api-version, so we are now ready to merge this. |
|
Hi @toddm, 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. |
|
There are cross version breaking changes ,could you follow the action to get approval: |
@jianyexi, I reduced the cross-version breaking changes to only the return error message, which we're required to change for compliance. Does that change the need to get a breaking change review? The customer impact will be minimal. |
The format change also need to be approved |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
|
@jianyexi can this be completed now? I got the breaking change sign-off. |
This was referenced Sep 3, 2021
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2021
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.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
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.