Skip to content

Add 2015-05-01 capabilities swagger - #1600

Merged
Anu Thomas (anuchandy) merged 2 commits into
Azure:currentfrom
gaagra:current
Sep 18, 2017
Merged

Add 2015-05-01 capabilities swagger#1600
Anu Thomas (anuchandy) merged 2 commits into
Azure:currentfrom
gaagra:current

Conversation

@gaagra

@gaagra gaagra commented Aug 29, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@msftclas

@gaagra,
Thanks for your contribution.
To ensure that the project team has proper rights to use your work, please complete the Contribution License Agreement at https://cla.microsoft.com.

It will cover your contributions to all Microsoft-managed open source projects.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

@azuresdkciprbot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi There,

I am the AutoRest Linter Azure bot. I am here to help. My task is to analyze the situation from the AutoRest linter perspective. Please review the below analysis result:

File: specification/sql/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 4 Error(s): 0
After the PR: Warning(s): 3 Error(s): 0

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues

Send feedback and make AutoRest Linter Azure Bot smarter day by day!

Thanks for your co-operation.

@anuchandy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@anuchandy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is a new swagger targeting API version 2015-05-01 so adding WaitForARMFeedBack label.

@anuchandy Anu Thomas (anuchandy) added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 29, 2017

@anuchandy Anu Thomas (anuchandy) left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix the CI failures as pointed. Also provide examples for capabilities operations.

@anuchandy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

gaagra it looks like swagger reference examples which does not exist.

You can repro this locally by running:

autorest --validation --azure-validator --message-format=json --input-file=./specification/sql/resource-manager/Microsoft.Sql/2015-05-01/capabilities.json
oav validate-spec ./specification/sql/resource-manager/Microsoft.Sql/2015-05-01/capabilities.json
oav validate-example ./specification/sql/resource-manager/Microsoft.Sql/2015-05-01/capabilities.json 

@azuresdkciprbot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi There,

I am the AutoRest Linter Azure bot. I am here to help. My task is to analyze the situation from the AutoRest linter perspective. Please review the below analysis result:

File: specification/sql/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 4 Error(s): 0
After the PR: Warning(s): 4 Error(s): 0

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues

Send feedback and make AutoRest Linter Azure Bot smarter day by day!

Thanks for your co-operation.

@anuchandy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Gaurav Bhatnagar (@ravbhatnagar) please sign-off.

@anuchandy Anu Thomas (anuchandy) left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good from SDK side.

"modelAsString": false
}
},
"reason": {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does service populate reason field only if status has a value other than Available (i.e. Visible, Default , Disabled )?

@gaagra gaagra Sep 1, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, that's correct

- Microsoft.Sql/2014-04-01/sql.core.json
- Microsoft.Sql/2014-04-01/usages.json
- Microsoft.Sql/2015-05-01-preview/blobAuditingPolicies.json
- Microsoft.Sql/2015-05-01/capabilities.json

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please add 2015-05-01-preview capabilities and use that one here.

@ravbhatnagar Gaurav Bhatnagar (ravbhatnagar) added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 12, 2017
@ravbhatnagar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Signed off!

@salameer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Anu Thomas (@anuchandy)

its seems to me that this is ready for merging right :)

@anuchandy
Anu Thomas (anuchandy) merged commit 26998d2 into Azure:current Sep 18, 2017
@AutorestCI

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No modification for AutorestCI/azure-sdk-for-node

@AutorestCI

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@AutorestCI

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Paul McClean (mccleanp) pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2022
Publish footprintMonitoring/preview/2020-02-01-preview SDK generation markdowns.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants