[API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource #3066

promoisha · 2018-05-14T17:43:41Z

Please, do not merge yet. Thanks!

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

I have read the contribution guidelines.
My spec meets the review criteria:
- The spec conforms to the Swagger 2.0 specification.
- The spec follows the guidelines described in the Swagger checklist document.
- Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.

promoisha · 2018-05-14T17:45:04Z

@solankisamir Samir, could you also take a look? Thanks!

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-05-14T17:49:44Z

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/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️

0 new Warnings.(89 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-05-14T17:49:44Z

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/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️

34 new Warnings.(34 total)

Code	Id	Source	Message
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'Policy_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'PolicySnippets_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ApiOperationPolicy_ListByOperation' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ApiPolicy_ListByApi' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NotificationRecipientUser_ListByNotification' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NotificationRecipientEmail_ListByNotification' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NetworkStatus_ListByLocation' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ProductPolicy_ListByProduct' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'QuotaByCounterKeys_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PostOperationIdContainsUrlVerb	R2066	Link	OperationId should contain the verb: 'updatecertificate' in:'ApiManagementService_UploadCertificate'. Consider updating the operationId
OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	R2063	Link	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'OperationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Operation' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'BodyDiagnosticSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'HttpMessageDiagnostic' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'PipelineDiagnosticSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'SamplingSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Api_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'ApiCreateOrUpdateParameter' Response Model: 'ApiContract'
XmsEnumValidation	R2018	Link	The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: versioningScheme
XmsEnumValidation	R2018	Link	The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: storeName
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'apiVersionSet' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
AvoidNestedProperties	R2001	Link	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience
LongRunningOperationsWithLongRunningExtension	R2007	Link	The operation 'Backend_Reconnect' returns 202 status code, which indicates a long running operation, please enable "x-ms-long-running-operation.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Certificate_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'CertificateCreateOrUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'CertificateContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'EmailTemplate_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'EmailTemplateUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'EmailTemplateContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Group_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'GroupCreateParameters' Response Model: 'GroupContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Subscription_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'SubscriptionCreateParameters' Response Model: 'SubscriptionContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Tag_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'TagCreateUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'TagContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'TagDescription_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'TagDescriptionCreateParameters' Response Model: 'TagDescriptionContract'
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToApi' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromApi' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToOperation' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromOperation' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToProduct' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromProduct' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'User_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'UserCreateParameters' Response Model: 'UserContract'

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

hovsepm · 2018-05-14T18:25:04Z

Please ping me directly via email or IM when you will be ready to merge.

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:28:09Z

@promoisha can you take a look at the 3 failures at
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378838912

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:28:46Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+        "percentage": {
+					"type": "number",
+					"format": "double",
+					"description": "Rate of sampling for fixed-rate sampling."


format the file in VS Code #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:29:06Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "PipelineDiagnosticSettings": {


missing description #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:29:19Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+      ],
+      "description": "Diagnostic details."
+    },
+    "SamplingSettings": {


missing description. #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:29:49Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "HttpMessageDiagnostic": {


missing description #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:29:58Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "BodyDiagnosticSettings" : {


missing top level description #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:31:53Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+      "properties": {
+        "alwaysLog": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "description": "Specifies for what type of messages sampling settings should not apply. By now only the 'allErrors' value is supported."


description [](start = 11, length = 11)

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

we can define it an an enum, so it becomes easy in the client. Also set the modelAsString property to true, so it would not be considered breaking change, when you add more values. Look for x-ms-enum property in the spec. #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:33:28Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+        "bytes": {
+          "type": "integer",
+          "format": "int32",
+          "description": "Number of request body bytes to log."


description [](start = 11, length = 11)

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

does it have a max value. #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-14T18:40:07Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+            "$ref": "./apimanagement.json#/parameters/SubscriptionIdParameter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "$filter",


any change to the $filter contract after change to the DiagnosticContract #Resolved

no changes here

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-05-14T19:28:09Z

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/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️

0 new Warnings.(30 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-05-14T19:28:09Z

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/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️

0 new Warnings.(89 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

solankisamir · 2018-05-17T23:05:27Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+    "PipelineDiagnosticSettings": {
+      "properties": {
+        "request": {
+          "allOf": [


allOf [](start = 11, length = 5)

why "allOf" ... and why not a simple $ref
request : { "$ref": "#/definitions/HttpMessageDiagnostic", "description: "" } #Closed

solankisamir · 2018-05-17T23:07:02Z

...ent/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimdiagnostics.json

+          "description": "Resource Id of a target logger."
+        },
+        "sampling": {
+          "allOf": [


why "allOf" and why not a simple "$ref" #Closed

same for others which define only one $ref

In reply to: 189126276 [](ancestors = 189126276)

solankisamir · 2018-05-17T23:10:44Z

...soft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementCreateApiDiagnostic.json

+    "apiId": "57d1f7558aa04f15146d9d8a",
+    "parameters": {
+      "properties": {
+        "enabled": true


"enabled": true [](start = 8, length = 15)

"enabled": true [](start = 8, length = 15)

The CI is complaining about this property in the example https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669 #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-17T23:11:27Z

...crosoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementCreateDiagnostic.json

+    "diagnosticId": "applicationinsights",
+    "parameters": {
+      "properties": {
+        "enabled": true


true [](start = 19, length = 4)

true [](start = 19, length = 4)

CI is complaining about this property
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669 #Resolved

solankisamir · 2018-05-17T23:15:26Z

CI is throwing errors for this
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669

Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementTenantConfigurationDeploy.json:27 in 239b96a. [](commit_id = 239b96a057b3647273e25d9ee56764587d71b4cd, deletion_comment = False)

AutorestCI · 2018-05-29T19:00:18Z

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-libraries-for-java

AutorestCI · 2018-05-29T19:01:57Z

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2135

marstr · 2018-06-15T19:00:29Z

Offline @promoisha has asked to merge this PR.

However, as @solankisamir has pointed out, there are unaddressed linter errors. Also, this is a huge PR. @promoisha, could you give me context about:

The API Version this is based on, so I can scrape the differences locally.
Why ARM hasn't been requested for review on this.
If there is a former PR in the private repository.

solankisamir · 2018-06-15T21:33:49Z

can you sync the latest changes from the version 2018-01-01

Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementServiceGetNetworkStatus.json:47 in 412a225. [](commit_id = 412a225, deletion_comment = False)

promoisha · 2018-06-15T23:51:32Z

@marstr

2018-01-01
because the introduced version is the preview one
No, this is the only PR

promoisha · 2018-06-16T00:06:57Z

@solankisamir done

promoisha · 2018-06-16T05:47:38Z

@marstr @solankisamir regarding linter errors - there's nothing that this PR has introduced. The only suspicious thing is this: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757. But nothing has changed there and the response contract is valid (the very same example in the previous api version doesn't trigger this error).

marstr · 2018-06-19T23:20:16Z

@promoisha says:
2. because the introduced version is the preview one

Ah, sorry I believe that we still look for ARM sign-off on preview API Versions.

I'm adding the "WaitForARMFeedback" label, but it should go quick because the ARM team should only really have to review the changes from the API Version this one is based on.

solankisamir · 2018-06-19T23:24:37Z

...gement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/apimproducts.json

+            "$ref": "#/parameters/ProductIdParameter"
+          },
+          {
+            "$ref": "./apimapis.json#/parameters/ApiIdParameter"


ApiIdParameter [](start = 49, length = 14)

this file also changed today for a bug fix.

marstr

We should at least fix this model error: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757#L1048

In terms of this error: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757#L1052
I'd like to see it fixed, because it's basically saying that null does not fit the json.org definition of a JSON object. However, if it's really a carry-over from the last API-Version then I can let it go.

Other than that, nothing jumped out to me :)

solankisamir

Once you can sync the latest changes from apimproducts.json, I am good for signoff

promoisha · 2018-06-19T23:59:17Z

@solankisamir updated the apimproducts.json with latest changes

AutorestCI · 2018-06-20T00:03:30Z

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

promoisha · 2018-06-20T07:34:22Z

@marstr validation error is fixed now

marstr

Once @ravbhatnagar has his review in, I'll be ready to merge.

promoisha · 2018-06-25T19:12:33Z

@ravbhatnagar could you please look into this PR?

New API Version 2018-06-01-preview

33f88f0

azuresdkci assigned hovsepm May 14, 2018

azuresdkci requested a review from hovsepm May 14, 2018 17:44

hovsepm added the DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval label May 14, 2018

solankisamir reviewed May 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

solankisamir requested changes May 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

promoisha force-pushed the gleb_apim_appinsightsintegrationga branch from 99cf5a3 to 239b96a Compare May 14, 2018 19:22

solankisamir reviewed May 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

New contracts for the Diagnostic resource

5961b92

promoisha force-pushed the gleb_apim_appinsightsintegrationga branch from 239b96a to 5961b92 Compare May 29, 2018 18:59

AutorestCI mentioned this pull request May 29, 2018

[AutoPR apimanagement/resource-manager] [API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2648

Merged

azuresdkci removed the Reassign label Jun 8, 2018

azuresdkci assigned marstr and unassigned hovsepm Jun 8, 2018

azuresdkci requested a review from marstr June 8, 2018 21:03

AutorestCI mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2018

[AutoPR apimanagement/resource-manager] [API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#1387

Closed

marstr added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Jun 19, 2018

solankisamir reviewed Jun 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

marstr requested changes Jun 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

solankisamir approved these changes Jun 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

Sync up changes with 2018-01-01

ce0aafd

promoisha force-pushed the gleb_apim_appinsightsintegrationga branch from bf73627 to ce0aafd Compare June 19, 2018 23:58

Fixing the linter error

401662d

marstr approved these changes Jun 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

marstr added ARM-overdue ARM review has not occurred within the expected timeframe and removed DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jun 26, 2018

marstr merged commit c8aca97 into Azure:master Jun 26, 2018

tianxchen-ms referenced this pull request in test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs Apr 26, 2022

deviceupdate change and add readme (#3066)

9ff84fd

dw511214992 referenced this pull request in dw511214992/azure-rest-api-specs Jul 8, 2022

deviceupdate change and add readme (test-repo-billy#3066)

3314542

dw511214992 referenced this pull request in test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs Oct 27, 2022

deviceupdate change and add readme (#3066)

4a8c267

[API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource #3066

[API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource #3066

Conversation

promoisha commented May 14, 2018 • edited by azuresdkci Loading

PR information

Quality of Swagger

promoisha commented May 14, 2018

azuresdkciprbot commented May 14, 2018

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

azuresdkciprbot commented May 14, 2018

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

hovsepm commented May 14, 2018

solankisamir commented May 14, 2018

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

azuresdkciprbot commented May 14, 2018

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

azuresdkciprbot commented May 14, 2018

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

solankisamir May 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir May 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir commented May 17, 2018

AutorestCI commented May 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

AutorestCI commented May 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

marstr commented Jun 15, 2018

solankisamir commented Jun 15, 2018

promoisha commented Jun 15, 2018

promoisha commented Jun 16, 2018

promoisha commented Jun 16, 2018

marstr commented Jun 19, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marstr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

solankisamir left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

promoisha commented Jun 19, 2018

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018 • edited Loading

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

promoisha commented Jun 20, 2018

marstr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

promoisha commented Jun 25, 2018

promoisha commented May 14, 2018 •

edited by azuresdkci

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

solankisamir May 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

AutorestCI commented May 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

AutorestCI commented May 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

AutorestCI commented Jun 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading