-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
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
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Capacity to add version preview/2019-04-01 #6731
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Capacity to add version preview/2019-04-01 #6731
Conversation
SDK Automation [Logs] (Generated from e886daf, Iteration 7)Python: Azure/azure-sdk-for-python [Logs] [Diff]
Go: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-go [Logs] [Diff]
JavaScript: Azure/azure-sdk-for-js [Logs] [Diff]
|
Automation for azure-sdk-for-pythonThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-goThe initial PR has been merged into your service PR: |
Model validation issues fixed in #6732. If you pull those fixes in here, let me know an I'll close that one |
I have pulled the fix. All validations are passing now. Could you please approve and merge? |
Sorry, i'm not an MS employee. I think there are instructions on the PR template for escalating internally |
@OpenAPIBot sdkautomation rebuild |
@NullMDR Can you have a look at SDK problem? |
@Juliehzl This should be a bug in sdk automation. I'll check it later. |
@OpenAPIBot sdkautomation rebuild |
Can somebody please take a look from ARM side? @Juliehzl : please assign someone. |
@@ -1012,6 +1012,9 @@ | |||
}, | |||
"renewProperties": { | |||
"$ref": "#/definitions/RenewPropertiesResponse" | |||
}, | |||
"term": { | |||
"$ref": "#/definitions/ReservationTerm" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ReservationTerm [](start = 33, length = 15)
You are adding a new property non-readonly property to a stable API version. This is considered a breaking change. You should introduce this change in a new API version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are adding a new property non-readonly property to a stable API version. This is considered a breaking change. You should introduce this change in a new API version.
When I was tracing usages through in the Swagger I mistook response for the body of a PUT, which led to me to conclude that it wasn’t read-only. This was also confirmed by the RP owners. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Signed off from ARM side.
If you are a MSFT employee you can view your work branch via this link.
Contribution checklist: