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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add resource type enum in Cdn 2021-06-01 #17403

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 19, 2022
Merged

Add resource type enum in Cdn 2021-06-01 #17403

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 19, 2022

Conversation

ChenglongLiu
Copy link
Member

@ChenglongLiu ChenglongLiu commented Jan 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

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:

  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 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.

  • 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, @ChenglongLiu 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-pipeline-app
    Copy link

    openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Jan 19, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Validation Report

    ️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand] 
    There are no breaking changes.

    ️⚠️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
    ❌ R4017 - TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription The top-level resource 'CdnWebApplicationFirewallPolicy' does not have list by subscription operation, please add it.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/cdnwebapplicationfirewall.json#L338
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'Certificate' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L3930
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'CustomerCertificate' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L3956
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDDomainListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4050
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDDomainProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4082
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDDomainUpdatePropertiesParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4136
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'DomainValidationProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4161
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDDomainHttpsParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4176
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecurityPolicyListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4334
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDEndpointProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4366
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDEndpointListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4384
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDEndpointPropertiesUpdateParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4419
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecretListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4470
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SecretProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4502
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RuleSetListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4665
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDOriginUpdatePropertiesParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4753
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'SharedPrivateLinkResourceProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4831
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDOriginListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4868
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDOriginGroupUpdatePropertiesParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4923
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AFDOriginGroupListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L4987
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RouteListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5004
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RouteUpdatePropertiesParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5060
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RuleListResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5193
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RuleUpdatePropertiesParameters' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5251
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'AfdErrorResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5351
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'MetricsResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5361
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'RankingsResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5431
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ContinentsResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5484
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'ResourcesResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5514
    ❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject The schema 'WafMetricsResponse' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'.
    Location: Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2021-06-01/afdx.json#L5576
    ️️✔️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 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

    ️️✔️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).
    Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?

    @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 Jan 19, 2022 •
    edited
    Loading

    Swagger Generation Artifacts

    ️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

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

    ️❌SDK Breaking Change Tracking failed [Detail]

    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-java warning [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-go-track2 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

    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-js 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-sdkautomation openapi-sdkautomation bot mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2022
    Closed
    This was referenced Jan 19, 2022
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    @openapi-sdkautomation openapi-sdkautomation bot mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2022
    Closed
    @ChenglongLiu ChenglongLiu changed the title Cdn 2021-06-01 fix Add resource type enum in Cdn 2021-06-01 Jan 19, 2022
    @changlong-liu changlong-liu merged commit bea32a0 into Azure:main Jan 19, 2022
    This was referenced Jan 19, 2022
    Closed
    Merged
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    Closed
    @openapi-sdkautomation openapi-sdkautomation bot mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2022
    Closed
    mstrisoline pushed a commit to mstrisoline/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2022
    @ChenglongLiu @markcowl @mstrisoline
    Add resource type enum in Cdn 2021-06-01 (Azure#17403)
    ac9c403 
    * Add blockchain to latest profile

* Add additional types

* Add ResourceType enum value

* Update ResourceType modelAsString

Co-authored-by: Mark Cowlishaw <markcowl@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Chenglong Liu <chengll@microsoft.com>
    LeiWang3 pushed a commit to LeiWang3/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2022
    @ChenglongLiu @markcowl @LeiWang3
    Add resource type enum in Cdn 2021-06-01 (Azure#17403)
    00072aa 
    * Add blockchain to latest profile

* Add additional types

* Add ResourceType enum value

* Update ResourceType modelAsString

Co-authored-by: Mark Cowlishaw <markcowl@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Chenglong Liu <chengll@microsoft.com>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers

    @changlong-liu changlong-liu changlong-liu approved these changes

    @jorinmejia jorinmejia Awaiting requested review from jorinmejia

    @t-bzhan t-bzhan Awaiting requested review from t-bzhan

    Assignees

    @changlong-liu changlong-liu

    Labels
    CI-BreakingChange-Go-V2 CI-BreakingChange-JavaScript FixS360
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
    3 participants
    @ChenglongLiu @changlong-liu @markcowl