[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.PolicyInsights to add version stable/2023-03-01 #22789
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, @kimmminjae 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] |
ghost
added
the
Swagger Validation Report
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| checkPolicyRestrictions.json | 2023-03-01(1bb6878) | 2022-03-01(main) |
| checkPolicyRestrictions.json | 2023-03-01(1bb6878) | 2020-07-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L376:9 Old: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2022-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L350:9 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The '$ref' property points to different models in the old and new versions. New: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L376:9 Old: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/preview/2020-07-01-preview/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L287:9 |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.0.0) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2023-03 | package-2023-03(1bb6878) | default(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
| Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L187 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The schema 'CheckRestrictionsRequest' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L173 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L180 |
|
The schema 'CheckRestrictionsResourceDetails' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L215 |
|
The schema 'PendingField' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L235 |
|
The schema 'CheckRestrictionsResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L254 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L257 |
|
The schema 'contentEvaluationResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L265 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L268 |
|
The schema 'FieldRestrictions' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L280 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L288 |
|
The schema 'FieldRestriction' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L297 |
|
The schema 'PolicyEvaluationResult' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L363 |
|
The schema 'PolicyReference' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L388 |
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'checkpolicyrestrictions' in:'PolicyRestrictions_CheckAtManagementGroupScope'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json#L128 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/policyinsights/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/policyinsights/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2023-03 |
️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️❌~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"\nfatal error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/policyinsights/resource-manager/Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/scenarios/basic.yaml', "errno":-2, "code":"ENOENT", "syscall":"open", "path":"/mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/policyinsights/resource-manager/Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/scenarios/basic.yaml"\n" |
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView 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.
️️✔️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.
️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Generated ApiView
|
This was referenced Feb 25, 2023
added 6 commits
February 27, 2023 14:59
…AuditEffect example and set IncludeAuditEffect default to false
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
there is no breaking change for python caused by this PR |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-BreakingChange-Python-Track2
and removed
CI-BreakingChange-Python-Track2
labels
tadelesh
reviewed
Mar 23, 2023
...hts/resource-manager/Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@ArcturusZhang @tadelesh Do we have everything we need to get it merged? Also, I get the following error in the Swagger SDK Breaking Change Tracking |
tadelesh
added
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
|
Hi @kimmminjae, 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. |
AzureRestAPISpecReview
removed
the
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
mikekistler
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
ArcturusZhang
deleted the
kimmminjae-policyinsights-Microsoft.PolicyInsights-2023-03-01
branch
This was referenced Apr 14, 2023
JoshLove-msft
pushed a commit
to JoshLove-msft/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2023
…rsion stable/2023-03-01 (Azure#22789) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.PolicyInsights from version stable/2022-03-01 to version 2023-03-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Add new API version (2023-03-01) to Microsoft.PolicyInsights * Fixed UNRESOLVABLE_REFERENCE issue * Fixed UNRESOLVABLE_REFERENCE issue * Fixed UNRESOLVABLE_REFERENCE issue * Fixed MissingTypeObject issue * Added reference to PolicyRestrictions_CheckAtSubscriptionScopeIncludeAuditEffect example and set IncludeAuditEffect default to false * Added PolicyRestrictions_CheckAtResourceGroupScopeIncludeAuditEffect * update readme Tag: package-2023-03 * Fixed error in PolicyRestrictions_CheckAtSubscriptionScope.json * Fixed error in PolicyRestrictions_CheckAtResourceGroupScope.json * Update readme.go.md * updated examples for checkPolicyRestrictions * Added tag for java * Update specification/policyinsights/resource-manager/Microsoft.PolicyInsights/stable/2023-03-01/checkPolicyRestrictions.json Co-authored-by: Chris Eggert <[email protected]> * Replaced policyEffect type from enum to string and added doc url to description. * Revert readme.go.md * Update checkPolicyRestrictions.json * Update checkPolicyRestrictions.json * Update checkPolicyRestrictions.json * undo last commit --------- Co-authored-by: Minjae Kim <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Eggert <[email protected]>
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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
ARM API Information (Control Plane)
Azure 1st Party Service can try out the Shift Left experience to initiate API design review from ADO code repo. If you are interested, may request engineering support by filling in with the form https://aka.ms/ShiftLeftSupportForm.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):
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 copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For 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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.
NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.