[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Maps/Microsoft.Maps to add version preview/2.0 #15053
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, @rasub2 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 |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The operation id has been changed from 'RenderV2_GetMapTilePreview' to 'RenderV2_GetMapTile'. This will impact generated code. New: Render/preview/2.0/render.json#L248:7 Old: Render/preview/2.0/render.json#L243:7 |
️❌LintDiff: 2 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.8 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.8 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"swagger-document/compose - FAILED" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Error: '$.securityDefinitions.azure_auth.description' has incompatible values (--->- These are the Azure Active Directory OAuth2 Flows. When paired with Azure Role Based Access control it can be used to control access to Azure Maps REST APIs. Azure Role based access controls are used to designate access to one or more Azure Maps resource account or sub-resources. Any user, group, or service principal can be granted access via a built in role or a custom role composed of one or" |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Feedback/preview/1.0/feedback.json#L216 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Mobility/preview/1.0/mobility.json#L1464 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Mobility/preview/1.0/mobility.json#L1491 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1813 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1855 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1878 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Route/preview/1.0/route.json#L1969 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Search/preview/1.0/search.json#L2075 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Spatial/preview/1.0/spatial.json#L1094 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Spatial/preview/1.0/spatial.json#L1117 |
️️✔️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.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-preview-2.0",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-preview-2.0",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)"|
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Duplicate Schema named ODataErrorResponse -- properties.error.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:39" ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Duplicate Schema named ODataError -- properties.details.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:42" ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Duplicate Schema named LongRunningOperationResult -- properties.error.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:74", properties.warning.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:74" ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Duplicate Schema named CoordinateAbbreviated -- properties.lat.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:858", properties.lat.readOnly: undefined => true, properties.lon.$ref: undefined => "#/components/schemas/schemas:859", properties.lon.readOnly: undefined => true ; This error can be temporarily avoided by using the 'modelerfour.lenient-model-deduplication' setting. NOTE: This setting will be removed in a future version of @autorest/modelerfour; schemas should be updated to fix this issue sooner than that." |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'Point' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'Polygon' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'LineString' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'MultiPoint' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'MultiPolygon' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
|
"readme":"maps/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2.0", "details":"Schema 'MultiLineString' has a property 'type' that is conflicting with a property in the parent schema 'GeoJSONGeometry' differs more than just description : [x-ms-enum => '', enum => '']" |
️️✔️[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).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
[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. |
|
Hi @rasub2, 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. |
|
@rasub2: we have new client structure merged in #14871, should we proceed with merging this update into https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/maps/data-plane/Render/preview/2.0/render.json ? |
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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
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.