-
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 preview/2020-04-01-preview #12477
[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.KeyVault to add version preview/2020-04-01-preview #12477
Conversation
Hi, @jiacheng-L 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] |
Swagger Validation Report
|
Rule | Message |
---|---|
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L447:11 |
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L499:11 |
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L544:11 |
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L740:11 |
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/keyvault.json#L791:11 |
1011 - AddingResponseCode |
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/preview/2020-04-01-preview/providers.json#L38:11 |
️️✔️
LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for LintDiff.
️️✔️
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
|
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. |
@jiacheng-L , can you take above action to kick off the breaking change review? Also, please select the SDK/CLI to refresh in the first comment of this PR. |
Why are breaking changes on a preview swaggers considered breaking? These add specifications that, by default, the standard Azure error is returned. That wouldn't even be considered breaking compared to a previous stable version. |
Even it's aligned with the service code, this is considered a breaking change to SDK which doesn't return as default error model. There's an breaking change approval window before 1/31 to fix this kind of swagger s360 KPI issue. So, just request the breaking change review with this justification. |
This is considered as Swagger s360 KPI issue because it doesn't return the default error model. And I already submitted the breaking change review request. But actually, adding this default error back on a preview version should not be considered as a breaking change. |
Per the policy, breaks to public preview version needs a new API version. |
@ArcturusZhang @msyyc , can you check if there's any SDK breaking change? Thanks. |
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.
The breaking changes do not come from this PR
For python, the breaking changes do not come from this PR |
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
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.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.