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.

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

[Service Fabrid] 8.2 spec #16498

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 11, 2021
Merged

[Service Fabrid] 8.2 spec #16498

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 11, 2021

Conversation

jeffj6123
Copy link
Contributor

@jeffj6123 jeffj6123 commented Oct 21, 2021

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific langauge SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

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.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] 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.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @jeffj6123 Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

  • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Oct 21, 2021

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    There are no breaking changes.
    ️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
    Rule Message
    ⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience
    Location: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.2/servicefabric.json#L25466
    ⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience
    Location: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.2/servicefabric.json#L25879
    ️️✔️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: 3 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
    The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
    Rule Message
    1023 - TypeFormatChanged The new version has a different format than the previous one.
    New: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.2/servicefabric.json#L5867:13
    Old: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.1/servicefabric.json#L5832:13
    1023 - TypeFormatChanged The new version has a different format than the previous one.
    New: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.2/servicefabric.json#L5905:13
    Old: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.1/servicefabric.json#L5870:13
    1023 - TypeFormatChanged The new version has a different format than the previous one.
    New: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.2/servicefabric.json#L22130:5
    Old: Microsoft.ServiceFabric/stable/8.1/servicefabric.json#L21966:5
    ️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    There is no credential detected.
    ️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

    ️️✔️[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).
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    [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.

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Oct 21, 2021

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️[Staging] ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
     Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account. 
    ️️✔️[Staging] SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Breaking Changes Tracking

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python warning [Detail]
    • ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from f0edc1d. SDK Automation 14.0.0
      command	sh scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initOutput.json
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] ERROR: pip's dependency resolver does not currently take into account all the packages that are installed. This behaviour is the source of the following dependency conflicts.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-mgmt-core 1.3.0 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.15.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] ERROR: pip's dependency resolver does not currently take into account all the packages that are installed. This behaviour is the source of the following dependency conflicts.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] opencensus-ext-azure 1.1.0 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.12.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-mgmt-core 1.3.0 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.15.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] azure-identity 1.7.1 requires azure-core<2.0.0,>=1.11.0, but you have azure-core 1.6.0 which is incompatible.
      cmderr	[automation_init.sh] WARNING: Skipping azure-nspkg as it is not installed.
      command	sh scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateOutput.json
    • ️✔️azure-servicefabric [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]
      info	[Changelog] data-plan skip changelog generation temporarily
    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]
    • ⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from f0edc1d. SDK Automation 14.0.0
      command	./eng/mgmt/automation/init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initOutput.json
      command	./eng/mgmt/automation/generate.py ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateOutput.json
      cmderr	[generate.py] 2021-11-11 17:09:44 ERROR [Skip] readme path does not format as specification/*/resource-manager/readme.md
      warn	No file changes detected after generation
      warn	No package detected after generation
    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-js succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
    • ️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from f0edc1d. SDK Automation 14.0.0
      warn	Skip initScript due to not configured
      command	autorest --version=V2 --typescript --license-header=MICROSOFT_MIT_NO_VERSION --use=@microsoft.azure/autorest.typescript@4.7.0 --typescript-sdks-folder=/home/vsts/work/1/s/azure-sdk-for-js/azure-sdk-for-js ../../azure-rest-api-specs/specification/servicefabric/data-plane/readme.md
    • ️✔️@azure/servicefabric [View full logs]  [Release SDK Changes]
      cmderr	[npmPack] loaded rollup.config.js with warnings
      cmderr	[npmPack] (!) Unused external imports
      cmderr	[npmPack] default imported from external module 'rollup' but never used
      cmderr	[npmPack] ./esm/serviceFabricClient.js → ./dist/servicefabric.js...
      cmderr	[npmPack] created ./dist/servicefabric.js in 1.1s
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    Hi @jeffj6123, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff.

    TaskHow to fixPrioritySupport (Microsoft alias)
    AvocadoFix-AvocadoHighruowan
    Semantic validationFix-SemanticValidation-ErrorHighraychen, jianyxi
    Model validationFix-ModelValidation-ErrorHighraychen,jianyxi
    LintDiffFix-LintDiffhighjianyxi, ruoxuan
    If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback."

    @markweitzel markweitzel added the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label Oct 25, 2021
    @markweitzel markweitzel changed the title SF 8.2 spec [Service Fabrid] 8.2 spec Oct 25, 2021
    @markweitzel markweitzel linked an issue Oct 25, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
    @czubair czubair mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2021
    @jeffj6123
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    @jhendrixMSFT is it PR good to be merged?

    @jhendrixMSFT
    Copy link
    Member

    @jeffj6123 has this been reviewed and approved by the API board?

    @jeffj6123
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    @jhendrixMSFT yes that is correct

    @jhendrixMSFT
    Copy link
    Member

    I see a few references to ApiVersion_8-1_RequiredQueryParam, is that expected?

    @jeffj6123
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    @jhendrixMSFT yes that is correct

    @jhendrixMSFT jhendrixMSFT merged commit f0edc1d into Azure:main Nov 11, 2021
    LeiWang3 pushed a commit to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2022
    * added SF 8.2 spec.
    
    * fixed version in swagger.
    
    * added additional examples and  fixed spelling mistakes.
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team.
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    [Service Fabrid] 8.2 spec
    3 participants