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

Split.IO Add 2024-07-01-preview #30024

Merged

Conversation

hahahahahaiyiwen
Copy link
Member

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

Tip

Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the Getting help section at the bottom of this PR description.

PR review workflow diagram

Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.

spec_pr_review_workflow_diagram

Purpose of this PR

What's the purpose of this PR? Check the specific option that applies. This is mandatory!

  • New resource provider.
  • New API version for an existing resource provider. (If API spec is not defined in TypeSpec, the PR should have been created in adherence to OpenAPI specs PR creation guidance).
  • Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
  • Update existing version to fix OpenAPI spec quality issues in S360.
  • Convert existing OpenAPI spec to TypeSpec spec (do not combine this with implementing changes for a new API version).
  • Other, please clarify:
    • edit this with your clarification

Due diligence checklist

To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:

  • I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
  • I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
    ARM resource provider contract and
    REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
    I understand this is required before I can proceed to the diagram Step 2, "ARM API changes review", for this PR.

Additional information

Viewing API changes

For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.

Suppressing failures

If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
suppressions guide to get approval.

Getting help

  • First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the Purpose of this PR and Due diligence checklist.
  • If you don't have permissions to remove or add labels to the PR, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories
  • To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the Next Steps to Merge comment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state.
  • For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
    and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
  • For help with ARM review (PR workflow diagram Step 2), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
  • If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in queued state, please add a comment with contents /azp run.
    This should result in a new comment denoting a PR validation pipeline has started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.
  • If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.

Copy link

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Jul 30, 2024

Next Steps to Merge

✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.

Copy link

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Jul 30, 2024

@AzureRestAPISpecReview AzureRestAPISpecReview added ARMReview new-api-version resource-manager RPaaS TypeSpec Authored with TypeSpec WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jul 30, 2024
Copy link
Member

@rkmanda rkmanda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:shipit:

@rkmanda
Copy link
Member

rkmanda commented Aug 10, 2024

Pl fix the Typespec validation and model validation failures

@rkmanda rkmanda added the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Aug 10, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 10, 2024
@hahahahahaiyiwen
Copy link
Member Author

@rkmanda I don't think the model validation failure is right.

  1. The latest typespec update makes Update parameters a tracked resource that requires "location" property, which doesn't make sense for update parameters. Since we don't support update of region.
  2. Even after I added location to the example, the model validation still fails and suggests me to add location inside the properties of Update parameter

@hahahahahaiyiwen hahahahahaiyiwen removed the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Aug 11, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 11, 2024
@gary-x-li
Copy link
Contributor

@hahahahahaiyiwen Can you fix the ModelValidation failure? There're still two violations.

@gary-x-li gary-x-li added the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Aug 12, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 12, 2024
@hahahahahaiyiwen hahahahahaiyiwen removed the ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review label Aug 13, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 13, 2024
@AzureRestAPISpecReview AzureRestAPISpecReview added the ReadyForApiTest <valid label in PR review process>add this label when swagger and service APIs are ready for test label Aug 13, 2024
@gary-x-li gary-x-li added the ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review label Aug 13, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 13, 2024
@gary-x-li gary-x-li added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required Approved-Suppression and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Aug 13, 2024
@hahahahahaiyiwen
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run

Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 3 pipeline(s).

@hahahahahaiyiwen
Copy link
Member Author

/pr merge

@hahahahahaiyiwen hahahahahaiyiwen added the PublishToCustomers Acknowledgement the changes will be published to Azure customers. label Aug 23, 2024
@hahahahahaiyiwen hahahahahaiyiwen merged commit 20e9432 into Azure:main Aug 23, 2024
29 of 30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Approved-Suppression ARMReview ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review new-api-version PublishToCustomers Acknowledgement the changes will be published to Azure customers. ReadyForApiTest <valid label in PR review process>add this label when swagger and service APIs are ready for test resource-manager RPaaS SuppressionReviewRequired TypeSpec Authored with TypeSpec
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants