updating fusion entries in the latest branch from Anat #16531
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, @viskumar-microsoft 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 response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L37 |
|
The schema 'OfficeConsentList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L902 |
| The child tracked resource, 'comments' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L538 |
|
| 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/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L458 |
|
| 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/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L668 |
|
| 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/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L1202 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/AlertRules.json#L877 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/AlertRules.json#L1050 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/AlertRules.json#L1243 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: suppressionEnabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/AlertRules.json#L1258 |
|
| 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/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L1169 |
|
| 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/stable/2020-01-01/SecurityInsights.json#L1129 |
️❌Avocado: 180 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
Only 22 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 225 Errors, 246 Warnings failed [Detail]
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
Only 22 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json#L37:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/bookmarks/{bookmarkId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json#L82:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L37:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L94:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/alerts' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L234:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/bookmarks' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L279:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/comments' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L324:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/comments/{incidentCommentId}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L385:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/entities' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L534:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/relations' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L579:5 |
|
The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/incidents/{incidentId}/relations/{relationName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L640:5 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceGroupName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L508:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json#L387:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L508:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json#L387:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ApiVersion' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L508:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2020-01-01/Bookmarks.json#L387:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceGroupName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1491:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L3764:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1491:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L3764:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceGroupName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json#L496:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L1084:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json#L496:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/ThreatIntelligence.json#L1084:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'SubscriptionId' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L689:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Watchlists.json#L728:3 |
|
The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ODataSkipToken' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L689:3 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Watchlists.json#L728:3 |
|
The new version is removing enum value(s) 'Critical' from the old version. New: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/IncidentTypes.json#L226:9 Old: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L1844:9 |
|
The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'code' renamed or removed? New: common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json#L332:7 Old: common-types/resource-management/v1/types.json#L289:7 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
Only 22 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
️❌[Staging] PrettierCheck: 4 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Code style issues found path: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/AlertRules.json |
|
Code style issues found path: 2021-10-01-preview/examples/alertRules/CreateFusionAlertRule.json |
|
Code style issues found path: 2021-10-01-preview/examples/alertRules/GetAllAlertRules.json |
|
Code style issues found path: 2021-10-01-preview/examples/alertRules/GetFusionAlertRule.json |
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @viskumar-microsoft, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced Oct 25, 2021
anat-gilenson
suggested changes
Oct 28, 2021
Next Steps to MergeNext steps that must be taken to merge this PR:
|
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
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
November 2021
November 2021
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.