-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
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.KeyVault to add version stable/2019-09-01 #11607
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.KeyVault to add version stable/2019-09-01 #11607
Conversation
Swagger Validation Report
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
|
Rule | Message |
---|---|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: purgeProtectionEnabled New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L1422 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: purgeProtectionEnabled New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L1422 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: purgeProtectionEnabled New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L1422 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/providers.json#L112 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/providers.json#L112 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/providers.json#L112 |
️️✔️
Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️
ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️
SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Azure CLI Extension 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
|
azure-sdk-for-go
|
azure-sdk-for-net
|
azure-sdk-for-js
|
azure-sdk-for-java
|
azure-sdk-for-python
- Breaking Change detected in SDK
|
azure-sdk-for-python-track2
|
azure-resource-manager-schemas
|
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
|
Hi @jiacheng-L, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. |
No pipelines are associated with this pull request. |
@PhoenixHe-msft why the bot removed the |
@zhenglaizhang The bot removed BreakingChangeReviewRequired but CI failed |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
Hi @jiacheng-L, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. |
@fengzhou-msft @PhoenixHe-msft it's caused by known issue, jianye already fix this last week, so I just rerun to fix the issue. |
Add missing integer format
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
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.
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.