New Microsoft.Resources/deployments stable API version 2025-03-01

[kalbert312]

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]

PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment.

[azure-sdk]

API change check

APIView has identified API level changes in this PR and created following API reviews.

Microsoft.Authorization

[kalbert312]

@ramoka178 or next ARM reviewer, I requested some guidance on how to resolve this via the API spec review channel (https://teams.microsoft.com/l/message/19:0351f5f9404446e4b4fd4eaf2c27448d@thread.skype/1742917076477?tenantId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47&groupId=3e17dcb0-4257-4a30-b843-77f47f1d4121&parentMessageId=1742917076477&teamName=Azure%20SDK&channelName=API%20Spec%20Review&createdTime=1742917076477) and @mikeharder said that I should request the Approved-Avocado tag with a link to this issue Azure/avocado#152 that describes some issues with the MULTIPLE_DEFAULT_TAGS error.

If this error cannot be excepted, I'm not certain how to resolve it. There's a bunch of other resource types I have no familiarity with, and I do not understand what side effects some config changes have.
Is the entire section with tag: declarations based on CLI switch (yaml $(switch-name)) deleteable? I don't know how the SDK team runs the autorest command. It looks like this specification uses an older directory structure. Would updating that potentially resolve this?

I made some changes to the README.md, including deleting multiple tag declarations for package-resources flag and removing the package-2022-12 as the default tag to requiring a new switch package-2022-12, but I still get the error.

[mikeharder]

@ramoka178 or next ARM reviewer, I requested some guidance on how to resolve this via the API spec review channel (https://teams.microsoft.com/l/message/19:0351f5f9404446e4b4fd4eaf2c27448d@thread.skype/1742917076477?tenantId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47&groupId=3e17dcb0-4257-4a30-b843-77f47f1d4121&parentMessageId=1742917076477&teamName=Azure%20SDK&channelName=API%20Spec%20Review&createdTime=1742917076477) and @mikeharder said that I should request the Approved-Avocado tag with a link to this issue Azure/avocado#152 that describes some issues with the MULTIPLE_DEFAULT_TAGS error.

If this error cannot be excepted, I'm not certain how to resolve it. There's a bunch of other resource types I have no familiarity with, and I do not understand what side effects some config changes have. Is the entire section with tag: declarations based on CLI switch (yaml $(switch-name)) deleteable? I don't know how the SDK team runs the autorest command. It looks like this specification uses an older directory structure. Would updating that potentially resolve this?

I made some changes to the README.md, including deleting multiple tag declarations for package-resources flag and removing the package-2022-12 as the default tag to requiring a new switch package-2022-12, but I still get the error.

Adding Approved-Avocado for this one PR is OK, but going forward you will need to change your readme.md (assuming the Avocado rule is correct).

There's a bunch of other resource types I have no familiarity with, and I do not understand what side effects some config changes have.

Do you know who owns the other resource types? Is there an owner for the readme.md as a whole, that includes all the resource types?

Our first question is "why do you need multiple default tags like this?".

[kalbert312]

Do you know who owns the other resource types? Is there an owner for the readme.md as a whole, that includes all the resource types?

No. My team owns resource types deployments, deploymentStacks, deploymentScripts, bicepClient, templateSpecs. We don't own subscriptions, changes, dataBoundaries, links, or snapshots. So it's a mix of owners which makes this a little more difficult.

Our first question is "why do you need multiple default tags like this?".

I don't know. It seems like all the tag: declarations could be deleted, but I'm not sure how the automation works or SDK releases are run. I imagine they would pass the --tag=package-resources-2025-03 argument when I go to submit an SDK release request, which would scope the code gen down to that. Is a default tag necessary? It feels like it doesn't make sense for this ownership scenario.

[mikeharder]

Do you know who owns the other resource types? Is there an owner for the readme.md as a whole, that includes all the resource types?

No. My team owns resource types deployments, deploymentStacks, deploymentScripts, bicepClient, templateSpecs. We don't own subscriptions, changes, dataBoundaries, links, or snapshots. So it's a mix of owners which makes this a little more difficult.

Is there someone else on your team responsible for the readme as a whole? Should we work on this with just you, or others on your team?

[kalbert312]

Is there someone else on your team responsible for the readme as a whole? Should we work on this with just you, or others on your team?

There's no official owner but @anthony-c-martin said he can fill for one.

[kalbert312]

@msyyc It looks like merging is blocked until you approve.

[msyyc]

Approve for Python SDK part.