Do not omit type and name while serializing the resource object.

[ttlcgl]

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

• The title of the PR is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
• Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
• If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
• Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• My spec meets the review criteria:
  • The spec conforms to the Swagger 2.0 specification.
  • The spec follows the guidelines described in the Swagger checklist document.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2899

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-js

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-js

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#3708

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#1581

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go

[azuresdkci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[dsgouda]

Just to be sure, are all resources here supposed to have name, id and type as settable properties here?
If yes, please remove the x-ms-azure-resource flag her, if not, please identify those resources which do have name, id and type as settable and create a separate Resource definition for them.

[ryansbenson]

name, id and type should all be readonly. These fields should be generated from the URI on resource creation and are not required as input from the user. Is this not the case for the RP runtime, which requires these to be writable?

[ryansbenson]

We talked offline, approved

[johanste]

There is no description as to why this change is needed, and as such I'm having a hard time understanding what the broken scenario is. The change looks odd to me as the name and id property of a tracked resource is indeed read-only.

[ryansbenson]

We talked offline, approved

[ryansbenson]

We talked offline, approved

[johanste]

Since this may cause breaking changes in generated SDKs, I'd like to better understand the justification. @RyanBensonMSFT, @tatlicioglu, can you please share why this is needed?

[ryansbenson]

Typically performing CRUD operations on nested resources within the context of a parent resource isn't supported across ARM. If you look at MS.Compute/VM/Extensions, they're returned in the Get of a parent VM (as an optimized read) but you can't change them from that context, you have to perform CRUD on each extension directly. This allows for native support of core ARM constructs like RBAC, template deployment, policy...
After talking to Mehmet, I understand where you are now and understand this mitigation.

[dsgouda]

LGTM

[johanste]

But this affects more than deep put scenarios, no? It also makes the properties at the parent resource become non-read-only?