Fix Swagger correctness bug #10656759 #15793
Conversation
|
Hi, @samuelkuangms 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. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'repoUrl' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L309:7 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L309:7 |
|
The new version has a new property 'url' in response that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L309:7 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L309:7 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/operations.json#L37 |
|
The schema 'RepoList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L287 |
|
The schema 'WatchlistList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L448 |
|
The schema 'WatchlistItemList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L598 |
|
The schema 'EntityQueryList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/EntityQueries.json#L258 |
| 'PUT' operation 'ProductSettings_Update' 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.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L185 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'ProductSettings_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L38 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'SentinelOnboardingStates_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/OnboardingStates.json#L187 |
|
| Sku Model definition 'Sku' is not valid. A Sku model must have 'name' property. It can also have 'tier', 'size', 'family', 'capacity' as optional properties. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L400 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SourceControlModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SourceControl' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L48 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'comments' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1938 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L3385 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'watchlistItems' with immediate parent 'Watchlist', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L618 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'AccountEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L947 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'ClientInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1187 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IncidentOwnerInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L2173 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IoTDeviceEntityProperties' for property 'iotSecurityAgentId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L2467 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailboxEntityProperties' for property 'externalDirectoryObjectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L2636 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'MailMessageEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L2857 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SecurityGroupEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L3884 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SubmissionMailEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L3923 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'UserInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L700 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L937 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1699 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isVolumeAnomaly Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Incidents.json#L2720 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isEnabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L292 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isEnabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L320 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isEnabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/Settings.json#L348 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: customerManagedKey Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/OnboardingStates.json#L237 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: action Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-03-01-preview/dataConnectors.json#L1433 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)"|
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"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
|
|
Hi @samuelkuangms, 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. |
|
NewApiVersionRequired reason: |
|
Hi @samuelkuangms, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
labels
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for 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
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 label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[ ] 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.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the 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.