{ContainerInstance} fixes Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#19195 #19532
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
fixes #19195 The below articles talks about the username field should not be required if identity is present. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/container-instances/using-azure-container-registry-mi#deploy-using-an-azure-resource-manager-arm-template
|
Hi, @navba-MSFT 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 |
|---|---|
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1259 |
|
Inline/anonymous models must not be used, instead define a schema with a model name in the 'definitions' section and refer to it. This allows operations to share the models. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1435 |
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L415 |
|
The schema 'GitRepoVolume' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1090 |
|
The schema 'ContainerGroupIdentity' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1405 |
|
The schema 'CloudError' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L2210 |
|
The schema 'CloudErrorBody' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L2219 |
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: timestamps Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L528 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: readOnly Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1064 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: readOnly Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L1155 |
|
| The response of operation:'ContainerGroups_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L114 |
|
| The response of operation:'ContainerGroups_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L155 |
|
| The response of operation:'ContainerGroups_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.ContainerInstance/stable/2021-10-01/containerInstance.json#L209 |
️️✔️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.
️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️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).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
This was referenced Jun 20, 2022
|
@angouloure @raych1 Could you please review this PR once you get a chance ? |
|
@leni-msft @angouloure Could you please review this PR once you get a chance ? Thanks in advance. |
leniatgh
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2022
navba-MSFT
added
potential-sdk-breaking-change
bug
This was referenced Jun 23, 2022
ghost
pushed a commit
to Azure/azure-resource-manager-schemas
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2022
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.
fixes #19195
The below articles talks about the username field should not be required if identity is present.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/container-instances/using-azure-container-registry-mi#deploy-using-an-azure-resource-manager-arm-template
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.