-
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
Device Update for IoT Hub swagger changes from SDK client library review. #19492
Conversation
Hi, @dpokluda 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
|
compared swaggers (via Oad v0.9.6)] | new version | base version |
---|---|---|
deviceupdate.json | 2022-07-01(ba91ceb) | 2022-07-01(main) |
️️✔️
Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️❌
LintDiff: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0) | new version | base version |
---|---|---|
package-2022-07-01-preview | package-2022-07-01-preview(ba91ceb) | package-2022-07-01-preview(main) |
The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
Rule | Message |
---|---|
R2003 - ValidFormats |
'url' is not a known format. Location: Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/preview/2022-07-01-preview/deviceupdate.json#L4360 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Rule | Message |
---|---|
Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/preview/2022-07-01-preview/deviceupdate.json#L2696 |
️️✔️
Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️
ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️
ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️
SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️
PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️⚠️
SDK Track2 Validation: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
|:speech_balloon: |"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.11.0 -> 1.11.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: |"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.11.0->1.11.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: |"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.21.4 -> 4.21.4)"|
|:speech_balloon: |"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.21.4->4.21.4)"|
|:speech_balloon: |"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview",
"details":"Autorest completed in 11.76s. 0 files generated."|
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Rule | Message |
---|---|
"readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview", "details":"Using directive.0.suppress which is deprecated and will be removed in the future." |
|
💬 | "readme":"deviceupdate/data-plane/readme.md", "tag":"package-2022-07-01-preview", "details":"AutoRest core version selected from configuration: ^3.2.0." |
️️✔️
PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️
SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️
Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
️️✔️
CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for CadlValidation.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Hi @dpokluda, 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. |
Hi @dpokluda, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
Please do not modify package-lock.json in PR |
…orty; removing to fix Linux filename casing issue).
.../deviceupdate/data-plane/Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/preview/2022-07-01-preview/deviceupdate.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
So far, no REST API change.
SDK in preview, so we can do breaking changes to SDK.
.../deviceupdate/data-plane/Microsoft.DeviceUpdate/preview/2022-07-01-preview/deviceupdate.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
} |
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.
ideally this file should not be in commit.
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.
How do I remove it from the commit? I reverted the changes I made.
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.
git checkout main -- package-lock.json
then double check and commit the change, push. That should make it exactly same as main, and it should disappear from the PR.
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.
There was a terminology issue raised in the SDK Arch Board review that seems to originate in the path structure of the REST API.
There are two "collections" (static path segments) that both use "deviceClassId" as the id:
- deviceClasses
- deviceClassSubgroups
If these are truly two distinct collections, they should have distinct ids. Conversely, if these are two different names for the same collection, then you should pick one name and use it consistently.
@mikekistler, the concepts are same but the two (device-class at the global level and device-class-subgroup at the group level represent slightly different set of devices). I have sent you a detailed e-mail describing the two concepts and their differences. |
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.
Approving that the content is valid Swagger and makes to me, I'm not judging the accuracy of the rename since I was not in archboard
@mikekistler I was told by @dpokluda that your "request-changes" was actually just a comment, therefore I'm ignoring it and merging to allow David to more forward. If you have concerns let me know. Thanks! |
@lmazuel I must have pushed request changes by mistake. It is correct that this was just a comment. And I can't seem to undo it now so leaving this comment here "for the record". |
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for 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
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following appy to the PR so that the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.
-[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change 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.