Users/vikottur/ws02 datasource auth #14932
Merged
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, @vikramkotturu 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. |
ghost
added
the
customer-reported
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'BackupInstances' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1803 |
|
| 'backupInstanceName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1552 |
|
| 'backupInstanceName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1619 |
|
| 'backupInstanceName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1686 |
|
| 'backupInstanceName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1753 |
|
| 'backupInstanceName' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1820 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesRequestResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2419 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesResponseResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2449 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupRecoveryPointResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2710 |
|
The schema 'BackupInstanceResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3007 |
|
The schema 'BackupVaultResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3130 |
|
The schema 'BaseBackupPolicyResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3190 |
|
The schema 'CloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3388 |
|
The schema 'Error' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3818 |
|
The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3854 |
|
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4074 |
️️✔️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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.11)
- current:preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json compared with base:preview/2021-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json
- current:preview/2021-06-01-preview/dataprotection.json compared with base:stable/2021-01-01/dataprotection.json
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️🔄[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation inProgress [Detail]
️️✔️[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).
|
Thank you for your contribution vikramkotturu! We will review the pull request and get back to you soon. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
26 tasks
This was referenced Jun 22, 2021
ArcturusZhang
added
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
| "secretStoreType": { | ||
| "description": "Gets or sets the type of secret store", | ||
| "enum": [ | ||
| "Invalid", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is 'Invalid' type here? Consider removing it as 'InvalidType' for a secret store doesn't make sense.
RamyasreeChakka
added
the
ARMSignedOff
pilor
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
| "BackupVaults" | ||
| ], | ||
| "description": "Returns resource collection belonging to a resource group.", | ||
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_GetInResourceGroup", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be
Suggested change
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_GetInResourceGroup", | |
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_List", |
| "BackupVaults" | ||
| ], | ||
| "description": "Returns resource collection belonging to a subscription.", | ||
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_GetInSubscription", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be
Suggested change
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_GetInSubscription", | |
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_ListBySubscription", |
| "BackupInstances" | ||
| ], | ||
| "description": "Validate whether adhoc backup will be successful or not", | ||
| "operationId": "BackupInstances_ValidateForBackup", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider the path of this operation, should this be
Suggested change
| "operationId": "BackupInstances_ValidateForBackup", | |
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_ValidateForBackup", |
| "tags": [ | ||
| "FindRestorableTimeRanges" | ||
| ], | ||
| "operationId": "RestorableTimeRanges_Find", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be
Suggested change
| "operationId": "RestorableTimeRanges_Find", | |
| "operationId": "BackupInstances_FindRestorableTimeRanges", |
| "AzureBackupJob" | ||
| ], | ||
| "description": "Triggers export of jobs and returns an OperationID to track.", | ||
| "operationId": "ExportJobs_Trigger", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be
Suggested change
| "operationId": "ExportJobs_Trigger", | |
| "operationId": "BackupVaults_TriggerExportJobs", |
ArcturusZhang
approved these changes
Jul 2, 2021
This was referenced Jul 2, 2021
Closed
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
* Created base 2021-06-01-preview a copy of 2021-02-01-preview. * Added my changes to support datasource auth credentials ontop of the base from previous version. * Fixed as issue with FindRestorableTimeRanges.json example.
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
Please ensure to add changelog with 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
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from 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.