Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Security to add version preview/2021-07-01-preview #16239

Conversation

kerend
Copy link
Contributor

@kerend kerend commented Sep 30, 2021

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:

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
  3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
  4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific langauge SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

  • Change to data plane APIs
  • Adding new properties
  • All removals

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.

    • Adding a new service
    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
      -[ ] 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.

  • Removing API(s) in a stable version
  • Removing properties in a stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in a stable version
  • Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @kerend Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

  • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    [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.

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Sep 30, 2021

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️❌BreakingChange: 4 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
    Rule Message
    1041 - AddedPropertyInResponse The new version has a new property 'userImpact' in response that was not found in the old version.
    New: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    1041 - AddedPropertyInResponse The new version has a new property 'implementationEffort' in response that was not found in the old version.
    New: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    1045 - AddedOptionalProperty The new version has a new optional property 'userImpact' that was not found in the old version.
    New: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    1045 - AddedOptionalProperty The new version has a new optional property 'implementationEffort' that was not found in the old version.
    New: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2021-07-01-preview/customAssessmentAutomation.json#L293:7
    ️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
    The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

    Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

    Rule Message
    R3021 - PathResourceTypeNameCamelCase Resource type naming must follow camel case. Path: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Security/locations/{ascLocation}/ExternalSecuritySolutions'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/externalSecuritySolutions.json#L76
    R3021 - PathResourceTypeNameCamelCase Resource type naming must follow camel case. Path: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Security/locations/{ascLocation}/ExternalSecuritySolutions/{externalSecuritySolutionsName}'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/externalSecuritySolutions.json#L118
    R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/securityContacts.json#L185
    R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/workspaceSettings.json#L216
    R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/automations.json#L239
    R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/alertsSuppressionRules.json#L182
    R4011 - DeleteOperationResponses The delete operation is defined without a 200 or 204 error response implementation,please add it.'
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-06-01/assessmentMetadata.json#L248
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/compliances.json#L163
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L371
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L376
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L381
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L386
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L470
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L475
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L480
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L573
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L578
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L583
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2019-01-01-preview/regulatoryCompliance.json#L588
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/adaptiveNetworkHardenings.json#L235
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/topologies.json#L242
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/jitNetworkAccessPolicies.json#L725
    R4013 - IntegerTypeMustHaveFormat The integer type does not have a format, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/jitNetworkAccessPolicies.json#L653
    R4017 - TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription The top-level resource 'ServerVulnerabilityAssessment' does not have list by subscription operation, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/serverVulnerabilityAssessments.json#L324
    R4017 - TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription The top-level resource 'AdaptiveNetworkHardening' does not have list by subscription operation, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2020-01-01/adaptiveNetworkHardenings.json#L327
    R4018 - OperationsApiResponseSchema The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.Security/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/preview/2015-06-01-preview/operations.json#L37
    R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: resource-manager/common/v1/types.json#L59
    R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: resource-manager/common/v1/types.json#L59
    R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ComplianceResultList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2017-08-01/complianceResults.json#L117
    R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ErrorAdditionalInfo' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: resource-manager/common/v1/types.json#L59
    ️️✔️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 errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
    Rule Message
    AutorestCore/Exception "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md",
    "tag":"package-composite-v1",
    "details":"Error: Semantic validation failed. There was some errors"
    AutorestCore/Exception "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md",
    "tag":"package-composite-v2",
    "details":"Error: Semantic validation failed. There was some errors"
    AutorestCore/Exception "readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md",
    "tag":"package-composite-v3",
    "details":"Error: Plugin prechecker reported failure."
    ️️✔️[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).
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Sep 30, 2021

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️[Staging] ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌[Staging] SDK Breaking Change Tracking failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️❌ azure-sdk-for-net failed [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-js succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    ️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]

    Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @openapi-workflow-bot
    Copy link

    NewApiVersionRequired reason:

    A service’s API is a contract with customers and is represented by using the api-version query parameter. Changes such as adding an optional property to a request/response or introducing a new operation is a change to the service’s contract and therefore requires a new api-version value. This is critically important for documentation, client libraries, and customer support.

    EXAMPLE: if a customer calls a service in the public cloud using api-version=2020-07-27, the new property or operation may exist but if they call the service in a government cloud, air-gapped cloud, or Azure Stack Hub cloud using the same api-version, the property or operation may not exist. Because there is no clear relationship between the service api-version and the new property/operation, customers can’t trust the documentation and Azure customer have difficulty helping customers diagnose issues. In addition, each client library version documents the service version it supports. When an optional property or new operation is added to a service and its Swagger, new client libraries must be produced to expose this functionality to customers. Without updating the api-version, it is unclear to customers which version of a client library supports these new features.

    @ruowan ruowan added the Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 label Oct 5, 2021
    @ruowan ruowan merged commit 191a721 into Azure:main Oct 5, 2021
    ghost pushed a commit to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2021
    jovannikolov-msft pushed a commit to jovannikolov-msft/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2021
    LeiWang3 pushed a commit to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 CI-BreakingChange-Go
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants