[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.DataProtection to add version preview/2022-02-01-preview #17925
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, @asmitt 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. vscswagger@microsoft.com |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5494 |
|
| 'alertsForAllJobFailures' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3379 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3566 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupFindRestorableTimeRangesResponseResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3597 |
|
The schema 'AzureBackupRecoveryPointResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3858 |
|
The schema 'BackupInstanceResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4172 |
|
The schema 'BackupVaultResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4331 |
|
The schema 'BaseBackupPolicyResource' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4391 |
|
The schema 'CloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L4591 |
|
The schema 'Error' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5059 |
|
The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5097 |
|
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5319 |
|
The schema 'additionalDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L5367 |
|
The parameters:operationId,location should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L64 |
| 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1375 |
|
| 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1993 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'ResourceGuards' 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2774 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'ResourceGuards' 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3089 |
|
| Since operation 'BackupVaults_GetInSubscription' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L27 |
|
| Since operation 'BackupVaults_GetInResourceGroup' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L289 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetResourcesInSubscription' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2424 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetResourcesInResourceGroup' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2466 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDisableSoftDeleteRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2722 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDeleteResourceGuardProxyRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2774 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetBackupSecurityPINRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2826 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetDeleteProtectedItemRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2878 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetUpdateProtectionPolicyRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2930 |
|
| Since operation 'ResourceGuards_GetUpdateProtectedItemRequestsObjects' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2982 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'ResourceGuards_Put' should use method name 'Create'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2511 |
|
| 'PATCH' operation 'ResourceGuards_Patch' should use method name 'Update'. 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/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2664 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3605 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3778 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️~[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: 3 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json compared with base:stable/2022-01-01/dataprotection.json
- current:preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json compared with base:preview/2021-12-01-preview/dataprotection.json
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'KubernetesStorageClassRestoreCriteria' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3359:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-12-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2843:3 |
|
| The new version is missing a definition that was found in the old version. Was 'KubernetesPVRestoreCriteria' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L3359:3 Old: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2021-12-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L2843:3 |
|
| The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.DataProtection/preview/2022-02-01-preview/dataprotection.json#L1119:11 |
️️✔️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).
|
[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 Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Feb 21, 2022
|
Hi, @asmitt your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
j5lim
added
ARMSignedOff
|
@msyyc @ArcturusZhang could you please help to review this PR for SDK breaking change. |
|
approved for python breaking change. |
This was referenced Mar 14, 2022
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2022
…rsion preview/2022-02-01-preview (Azure#17925) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.DataProtection from version stable/2022-01-01 to version 2022-02-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * updated PUT and PATCH Vault API contract * prettier 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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
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 are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.
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.