Modify ipv6 firewall rules swagger file of 2022-11-01 #24086
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, @LeiWang3 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
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| IPv6FirewallRules.json | 2022-11-01-preview(f82db2f) | 2022-11-01-preview(main) |
️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️❌LintDiff: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.2) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-preview-2022-11 | package-preview-2022-11(f82db2f) | package-preview-2022-11(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
|
Model definition 'IPv6FirewallRule' must have the properties 'name', 'id' and 'type' in its hierarchy and these properties must be marked as readonly. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L215 |
RPC-Get-V1-03, RPC-Put-V1-08 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The resource name parameter 'serverName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L19 |
|
the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L47 |
|
The resource name parameter 'serverName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L61 |
|
The resource name parameter 'firewallRuleName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L61 |
|
the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L96 |
|
A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'IPv6FirewallRules_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'parameters[3].schema' Response Model: 'responses[200].schema' Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L106 |
|
the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L149 |
|
the default error response schema does not correspond to the schema documented at https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/common-api-details.md#error-response-content. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L199 |
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L26 |
|
| The response of operation:'IPv6FirewallRules_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L62 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L68 |
|
| The response of operation:'IPv6FirewallRules_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L106 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L112 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Sql/preview/2022-11-01-preview/IPv6FirewallRules.json#L174 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️⚠️~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
API Test is not triggered due to precheck failure. Check pipeline log for details.
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️️✔️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).
️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for CadlValidation.
️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
ghost
added
the
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Generated ApiView
|
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
|
Hi @LeiWang3, 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. |
|
Hi @LeiWang3, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced May 22, 2023
|
@LeiWang3 Please fix CI checks errors ( |
ericshape
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
LeiWang3
force-pushed
the
leiwang3/ipv6-2022-11-01
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d92632c
to
d41ef2a
Compare
|
@LeiWang3 Please resolve conflicting files first. |
|
@JeffreyRichter Could you help take a look at this breaking change ? It's public preview breaking change within one year, I guess it's fine. Thank you |
mikekistler
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
LeiWang3
force-pushed
the
leiwang3/ipv6-2022-11-01
branch
from
7790b73
to
f82db2f
Compare
tadelesh
added
the
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
|
Same |
qiaozha
approved these changes
May 24, 2023
v-xuto
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
qiaozha
added
Approved-LintDiff
and removed
Approved-OkToMerge
|
@konrad-jamrozik Please help review the Notes: Because of the urgency of this PR, we have merged the PR in advance. |
This was referenced May 24, 2023
@v-xuto Thank you for bringing my attention to this. I added this to our backlog: Did you get a chance to evaluate if the LintDiff failure is relevant, or not? @rkmanda FYI |
8 tasks
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.
ARM API Information (Control Plane)
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):
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 the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.
-[ ] 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. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For more details refer to the wiki. Note that this doesn't apply if you are trying to merge a PR that was previously in the private repository.
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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.
NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.