Preparing a new tag without the conflicting operation "Operations_List" #17315
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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, @tokaplan 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. [email protected] |
|
[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 path that was found in the old version. Was path '/providers/Microsoft.Insights/operations' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2021-10-14/livetoken_API.json#L39:5 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 1 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 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| 'ErrorResponseComponents' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-02-02/components_API.json#L369 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Resource provider naming must follow the pascal case. Path: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/microsoft.insights/components/{resourceName}/linkedStorageAccounts/{storageType}' Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2020-03-01-preview/componentLinkedStorageAccounts_API.json#L37 |
|
Tracked resource 'Workbook' must have patch operation that at least supports the update of tags. It's strongly recommended that the PATCH operation supports update of all mutable properties as well. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2021-08-01/workbooks_API.json#L473 |
|
The last resource provider 'microsoft.insights' doesn't match the namespace. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/analyticsItems_API.json#L37 |
|
The last resource provider 'microsoft.insights' doesn't match the namespace. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/analyticsItems_API.json#L85 |
|
The last resource provider 'microsoft.insights' doesn't match the namespace. Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2020-03-01-preview/componentLinkedStorageAccounts_API.json#L37 |
|
the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/aiOperations_API.json#L50 |
|
The nested resource 'ComponentLinkedStorageAccounts' does not have list operation, please add it. Location: Microsoft.Insights/preview/2020-03-01-preview/componentLinkedStorageAccounts_API.json#L240 |
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.Insights/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/aiOperations_API.json#L31 |
|
The schema 'display' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/aiOperations_API.json#L92 |
|
The schema 'OperationListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/aiOperations_API.json#L111 |
|
The schema 'AnnotationsListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/componentAnnotations_API.json#L244 |
|
The schema 'ApplicationInsightsComponentAPIKeyListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/componentApiKeys_API.json#L209 |
|
The schema 'WorkItemConfigurationsListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/componentWorkItemConfigs_API.json#L290 |
|
The schema 'ApplicationInsightsComponentFavorite' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/favorites_API.json#L240 |
|
The schema 'ApplicationInsightsWebTestLocationsListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTestLocations_API.json#L75 |
|
The schema 'WebtestsResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L285 |
|
The schema 'tags' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L310 |
|
The schema 'TagsResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L323 |
|
The schema 'tags' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L325 |
|
The schema 'webTestListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L334 |
|
The schema 'WebTest' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L353 |
|
The schema 'WebTestProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/webTests_API.json#L381 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L252 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplatesListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L291 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplate' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L303 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L318 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateGallery' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L357 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateLocalizedGallery' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L383 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateUpdateParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L399 |
|
The schema 'WorkbookTemplateErrorFieldContract' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json#L416 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/applicationinsights/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/applicationinsights/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2022-01-11 |
️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️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.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @tokaplan, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @tokaplan, 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. |
This was referenced Jan 12, 2022
vutran01
reviewed
Jan 12, 2022
| - Microsoft.Insights/stable/2020-11-20/workbookTemplates_API.json | ||
| - Microsoft.Insights/stable/2021-03-08/myworkbooks_API.json | ||
| - Microsoft.Insights/stable/2021-08-01/workbooks_API.json | ||
| - Microsoft.Insights/preview/2018-05-01-preview/components_API.json |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should components_api.json be from a stable version? https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/applicationinsights/resource-manager/Microsoft.Insights/stable/2015-05-01/components_API.json
once when it's been released it should be from the /stable #Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is actually an even newer stable version stable/2020-02-02, using that one.
vutran01
reviewed
Jan 12, 2022
| @@ -222,6 +222,31 @@ directive: | |||
|
|
|||
| ``` | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Tag: package-2022-01-11 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we call every Tag "package-" but maybe we should have special tag if we plan to publish the sdk for it? either that or have appropriate comments so the next person doesn't overwrite or regress the versions. maybe all add links to "best practices" and other sdk architecture
• Azure/azure-sdk-for-rust#563
• Azure/azure-sdk-for-rust#567
Please also read these docs:
• https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/481/API-Spec-SDK-Package-Versioning-Considerations
• https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/83/Manual-Process-Adding-new-API-version
#Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vutran01 , is there another reason to declare a tag? I thought they were only for generating SDKs... I'll add the links, that's a good idea I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, for building the sdk but not every tag is used to publish the sdk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added the links. Feel free to propose a convention, I don't think I have enough understanding of the overall process to have an opinion here. I don't even know why we would want to build an SDK and then not publish it.
|
@akning-ms , this PR is being marked as Breaking change. While that is probably technically correct, the change here is to remove a duplicate definition of an operation that is already defined in another file that is a part of the same package. Therefore, there shouldn't be any impact on the resulting API surface. Can you please take a look and help me figure out a way to unblock this PR and proceed? Thank you. |
If it is just removing duplicate definition, it is ok for the breaking change, not sure where is another operationList definition, but Is it make sense for you as @ArcturusZhang 's comment to move it in a separate file? |
@akning-ms the other definition is here in aiOperations_API.json. It's already a separate file. |
akning-ms
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
This was referenced Jan 21, 2022
[ReleasePR applicationinsights] [Go]Add batch tag 22/03/17
Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas#1987
Closed
mstrisoline
pushed a commit
to mstrisoline/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2022
…t" (Azure#17315) * Preparing a new tag without the conflicting operation "Operations_List" * Correcting components_API.json version for the tag * Updating the latest tag, adding reference materials to readme.md * Avocado error fix
LeiWang3
pushed a commit
to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
…t" (Azure#17315) * Preparing a new tag without the conflicting operation "Operations_List" * Correcting components_API.json version for the tag * Updating the latest tag, adding reference materials to readme.md * Avocado error fix
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:
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.