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

Upgrade Compute API version and Fix the response of POST response #3053

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 21, 2018

Conversation

hyonholee
Copy link
Contributor

@hyonholee hyonholee commented May 10, 2018

Upgrade Compute API version to 2018-04-01 and Fix the response of all POST operation.

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(0 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(0 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(83 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(57 total)
2 new Errors.(12 total)
Code Id Source Message
DescriptionMustNotBeNodeName R3011 Link Description must not match the name of the node it is supposed to describe. Node name:'parameters' Description:'parameters'
XmsExamplesRequired D5001 Link Please provide x-ms-examples describing minimum/maximum property set for response/request payloads for operations.

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(57 total)
0 new Errors.(11 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(83 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

Copy link
Contributor

@sergey-shandar sergey-shandar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hyonholee please, when creating a new API version, we need two commits. The first one is a copy of the old one, and the second one should contain changes. In this case, reviewers can see the difference. https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#filenames-and-folder-structure

@sergey-shandar sergey-shandar added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label May 14, 2018
@sergey-shandar
Copy link
Contributor

@ravbhatnagar new API version for Compute.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(57 total)
0 new Errors.(11 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(83 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@ravbhatnagar
Copy link
Contributor

@hyonholee - is there a response body in the final response with any of these POST operations?If yes, those will need to be modeled. I am guessing not, but just wanted to confirm. Looks fine. @sergey-shandar - feel free to merge based on response to above.

}
],
"responses": {
"200": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For all APis, please model a default error response whose schema complies with the error contract as per ARM RPC.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ravbhatnagar Do you mean adding default response like this? Is it necessary? Or can I add it in another PR later?

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels May 15, 2018
@@ -151,6 +151,19 @@ directive:
- TrackedResourceGetOperation

```
### Tag: package-2018-04-2
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hyonholee Is there a reason why it doesn't match API version?

  • API version: 2018-04-01
  • Tag: package-2018-04-2

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sergey-shandar Oh, I just set the tag name to "package-2018-04-2" because "package-2018-04" already exists. Could you suggest a better tag name?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hyonholee Oh, I see. It looks like 2018-04-01/disk.json is shared. In this case, it's breaking changes, right? Do you change service behavior for disk api version 2018-04-01? Since the 2018-04-01 disk is already in stable folder, I would recommend to create a new api version in this case.

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented May 17, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#2710

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented May 17, 2018

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
AutorestCI/azure-libraries-for-java#2

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented May 17, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2487

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented May 17, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#1853

@hyonholee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that this PR is required to fix all POST (currently broken) operations with client library and Powershell including the following issues:

Azure/azure-powershell#5956

Azure/azure-powershell#6030

Azure/azure-powershell#5982

@sergey-shandar sergey-shandar merged commit c6fea13 into Azure:master May 21, 2018
konrad-jamrozik pushed a commit to dhung-msft/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review potential-sdk-breaking-change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants