Dev peering microsoft.peering 2022 06 01 #19815
Merged
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, @JonathanSaraco 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 |
|---|---|---|
| peering.json | 2022-06-01(02f86eb) | 2022-01-01(main) |
| peering.json | 2022-06-01(02f86eb) | 2020-01-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2022-06-01 | package-2022-06-01(02f86eb) | default(main) |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2682 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2722 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2982 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3063 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3110 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3161 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3316 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3323 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3336 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3604 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3882 |
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'lookingglass' in:'LookingGlass_Invoke'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L210 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isPrimaryRegion Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2500 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: useForPeeringService Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2689 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: useForPeeringService Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L2762 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDataAction Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3009 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isTestSuccessful Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L3696 |
|
| The response of operation:'PeerAsns_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L322 |
|
| The response of operation:'PeerAsns_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L363 |
|
| The response of operation:'RegisteredAsns_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L579 |
|
| The response of operation:'RegisteredAsns_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L634 |
|
| The response of operation:'RegisteredPrefixes_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L814 |
|
| The response of operation:'RegisteredPrefixes_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L869 |
|
| The response of operation:'Peerings_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1106 |
|
| The response of operation:'Peerings_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1154 |
|
| The response of operation:'Peerings_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1271 |
|
| The response of operation:'ConnectionMonitorTests_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1503 |
|
| The response of operation:'ConnectionMonitorTests_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1558 |
|
| The response of operation:'Prefixes_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1823 |
|
| The response of operation:'Prefixes_CreateOrUpdate' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json#L1885 |
️️✔️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: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
- "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/02f86eb89aa7600f18bf4caf01345355c5cfb571/specification/peering/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2022-06-01">peering/resource-manager/readme.md#package-2022-06-01
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| "readme":"peering/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2022-06-01", "details":"Security scheme azure_auth is unknown and will not be processed. Only supported types are AADToken, AzureKey, Anonymous" |
️️✔️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
|
This was referenced Jul 19, 2022
This was referenced Jul 19, 2022
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
ARMReview
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @JonathanSaraco your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
rkmanda
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
|
Please ensure to respond feedbacks from the ARM API reviewer. When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
Hey rkmanda, I pushed a new commit to change the resource path for the post. Is that the kind of change you were referring to? |
JonathanSaraco
added
WaitForARMFeedback
Looks like you are trying to achieve checking for name availability. The recommendation is to implement the checknameAvailability contract as documented here https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/proxy-api-reference.md#check-name-availability-requests Please go thru it and feel free to come to the ARM office hours with any questions or send an email to armapireview alias Refers to: specification/peering/resource-manager/Microsoft.Peering/stable/2022-06-01/peering.json:1049 in 02f86eb. [](commit_id = 02f86eb, deletion_comment = False) |
rkmanda
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
JonathanSaraco
added
WaitForARMFeedback
@JonathanSaraco Can you provide more details for your use case? |
zizw123
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
Hello @zizw123, this validate call isn't really a check name availability request. The call queues an object called a peering registered prefix for validation, and then returns the prefix in a Pending Validation state. Then the validation runs asynchronously and checks that: the prefix exists as an ERM resource, the prefix does not already belong to another peer, and that the routes associated with the prefix are received. So I'd say this call is more like a resource action request as described in your guidelines, rather than a check name availability request. Let me know if you need to know anything else about this, thanks! |
JonathanSaraco
added
WaitForARMFeedback
zizw123
added
the
ARMSignedOff
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
ArcturusZhang
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
|
/azp run |
Generated ApiView
|
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
ArcturusZhang
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2022
This was referenced Aug 9, 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.
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 apply 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.