[Microsoft.App] Advanced Ingress ACA - 2024-10-02-preview

[tdaroly]

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

Tip

Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the Getting help section at the bottom of this PR description.

PR review workflow diagram

Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.

Purpose of this PR

What's the purpose of this PR? Check the specific option that applies. This is mandatory!

• New resource provider.
• New API version for an existing resource provider. (If API spec is not defined in TypeSpec, the PR should have been created in adherence to OpenAPI specs PR creation guidance).
• Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
• Update existing version to fix OpenAPI spec quality issues in S360.
• Convert existing OpenAPI spec to TypeSpec spec (do not combine this with implementing changes for a new API version).
• Other, please clarify:
  • edit this with your clarification

Due diligence checklist

To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:

• I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
• I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
  ARM resource provider contract and
  REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
  I understand this is required before I can proceed to the diagram Step 2, "ARM API changes review", for this PR.

Additional information

Viewing API changes

For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.

Suppressing failures

If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
suppressions guide to get approval.

Getting help

• First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the Purpose of this PR and Due diligence checklist.
• If you don't have permissions to remove or add labels to the PR, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories
• To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the Next Steps to Merge comment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state.
• For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
  and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
• For help with ARM review (PR workflow diagram Step 2), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
• If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in queued state, please add a comment with contents /azp run.
  This should result in a new comment denoting a PR validation pipeline has started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.
• If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Next Steps to Merge

✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Generated ApiView

Language	Package Name	ApiView Link
JavaScript	@azure/arm-appcontainers	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/ba41cd9978b542efb0688a072b2319a1?revisionId=19314d40d28c462883ca1fdb674fc055
Java	azure-resourcemanager-appcontainers	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/7da9ac1e2db64477ada2ba8bbb71169b?revisionId=de47002bc8ad4aa296b099ff0d7ede35
Swagger	Microsoft.App	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/53999dbad23b45cba7812a00a713cab8?revisionId=60842c77362f4a74a62533d6c8a6d0c4

[jijohn14]

Why choose tracked vs proxy?
https://armwiki.azurewebsites.net/rp_onboarding/tracked_vs_proxy_resources.html

[tdaroly]

Answered in comment below

[jijohn14]

Confirm if proxy resource type makes more sense

[tdaroly]

thank you for bringing this up, this is a good point! We will use ProxyResource. Changed.

[Juliehzl]

is it a long running operation?

[tdaroly]

no, we are just deleting the crd directly from cluster and thats it. no other dependency resources need deletion.

[jijohn14]

Confirm with Chris if resource creation happens async and will make this async.
Also to handle transient issues with managed cluster incase api-server availablity/throttling

[tdaroly]

we will keep this as non long running
cc: @Tratcher

[Juliehzl]

if it is not long running operation, you should never return 201. Please remove it

[tdaroly]

i removed 201 and now it is failing lint validation

[tdaroly]

[tdaroly]

We still need to adhere to synchronous running operation based on the source code of the lintDiff validation check
Hence, we need to add a 201 for non long runnning opps as well

https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/c26c69a9a4bc2c36a98752bb7dd89a7292e4a39a/packages/rulesets/src/spectral/functions/put-response-codes.ts#L39

[tdaroly]

picking a random spec from another resource provider, they have one of their PUT that has 201 responses.
https://github.com/tdaroly/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/tdarolywala/advanced-ingress-routing-2024-10-02-preview/specification/vi/resource-manager/Microsoft.VideoIndexer/preview/2024-06-01-preview/vi.json

[Juliehzl]

The lint error is for patch and the example file you update "HttpConfig_CreateOrUpdate" is for put. They are not related. Please remove 201 for HttpConfig_CreateOrUpdate. If there is lint error occured, please also fix as mentioned. If you think the lint error doesn't make sense, we can ask ARM for exception.

[tdaroly]

@Juliehzl i have fixed the lint error for PATCH.

I am now referring to the other error pertaining to 201 status codes for non long running operations. It seems that ARM has added a validation that required 201 for those as well. You can refer to those here:
https://github.com/Azure/azure-openapi-validator/blob/c26c69a9a4bc2c36a98752bb7dd89a7292e4a39a/packages/rulesets/src/spectral/functions/put-response-codes.ts#L39

Do we not want to support that? if so, yes i agree with you that we should ask ARM for exception.

[Juliehzl]

I see. If it is treated as valid for arm, then I am fine with it. Thanks!

[jijohn14]

Added suggestions

[tdaroly]

/pr RequestMerge