Add GetReservationOrder and GetReservation in new 2020-11-01-preview [DO NOT MERGE] #11450
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, @toddm 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. [email protected] |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @toddm your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). cc @${PRAssignee} |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Reservations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L99 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Reservations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L141 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Reservations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L183 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Reservations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L60 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: renew New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L747 |
|
| The response of operation:'Reservations_GetReservationOrderByBillingAccount' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L51 |
|
| The response of operation:'Reservations_GetReservationOrderByBillingProfile' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L90 |
|
| The response of operation:'Reservations_GetReservationByBillingAccount' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L132 |
|
| The response of operation:'Reservations_GetReservationByBillingProfile' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. New: Microsoft.Billing/preview/2020-11-01-preview/reservations.json#L174 |
️⚠️~[Staging] Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail] [Expand]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/billing/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/billing/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2020-05 |
️️✔️~[Staging] ModelValidation succeeded [Detail]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️~[Staging] SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️~[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️~[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail]
There are no breaking changes.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-go
|
Azure CLI Extension Generation
|
azure-sdk-for-java
|
azure-sdk-for-js
|
azure-sdk-for-python
- Breaking Change detected in SDK
|
azure-sdk-for-net
|
Trenton Generation
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
This was referenced Oct 29, 2020
This was referenced Oct 29, 2020
|
Do we have these all APIs working in the new version? |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-python-track2
No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured
|
toddm
changed the title
|
Hi, @toddm your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). cc @njuCZ |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
While adding new version the recommendation is to copy the existing version into new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes for easy review. Please create new branch with this recommendation for faster review. |
|
In this case, there are 4 new APIs in the new preview directory and they are all new. It does not contain a copy of the existing version. My team doesn't even own all of the APIs in the stable version so we're not in a position to make them all available in the preview version. |
|
Looks like these API's are exposing completely new scenarios, which requires a discussion with ARM API Review board. In case you've already meet with the team, please share the notes. Otherwise please schedule meeting with the ARM API review board oncall next week to get closure on this. |
|
GET reservationOrders API is also present on Microsoft.Capacity RP. The response is different currently. The team has ackd that they will fix the capacity RP response as well in the next api version. |
ravbhatnagar
reviewed
Nov 9, 2020
| "billingPlanDetails": null, | ||
| "state": "Created", | ||
| "subState": "Active", | ||
| "reservations": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do you really need to surface reservations in the response of reservationOrders? The customer can do an explicit GET to get all reservations under a reservationOrder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We did the same thing in Microsoft.Capacity for the reservationOrder.
ravbhatnagar
added
ARMSignedOff
asarkar84
added
the
DoNotMerge
|
Hi, toddm. Your PR has no update for 14 days and it is marked as stale PR. If no further update for over 14 days, the bot will close the PR. If you want to refresh the PR, please remove |
ghost
closed this
This pull request was closed.
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.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.