Adding new API version that includes Anycast option (RouteType)#16040
Conversation
|
Hi, @AriZavala2 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. vsswagger@microsoft.com |
|
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: routeType Location: NetworkTraversal/preview/2021-10-08-preview/CommunicationNetworkTraversal.json#L65 |
|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: routeType Location: NetworkTraversal/preview/2021-10-08-preview/CommunicationNetworkTraversal.json#L101 |
|
| 'body' parameter lacks 'description' property. Consider adding a 'description' element. Accurate description is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: NetworkTraversal/preview/2021-10-08-preview/CommunicationNetworkTraversal.json#L26 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️⚠️Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 5 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.0)
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
|
Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment. |
|
Hi @AriZavala2, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
AriZavala2
force-pushed
the
AriZavala2/turn_swagger_update
branch
from
1abae15 to
6e979c6
Compare
AriZavala2
changed the title
|
@tjprescott Can the validation distinguish between request and response models? The new required property has been added to a model that's only used in responses, so it shouldn't be considered a breaking change. |
|
@DominikMe the only required check that is breaking seems to be on an enum, not any required parameters. |
|
@tjprescott I was referring to the "Cross-Version Breaking Changes" which seems to be unhappy with the new required property in the response models.
|
|
Looking at the Breaking Changes policy this categorization is actually correct Two arguments in favor of this new required property:
|
|
@DominikMe you only need to concern yourself with the CI failures with the "Required" label, which in this case is the Swagger ModelValidation for your enum. The reasons you state (breaking change between previews) may be why the Cross-Version Breaking Changes step is not required to pass. It does seem a little strange to me to have a required property on a response-only schema, but essentially the tools don't know whether a model is used in response or request and hence it will apply the various rules, since models are frequently returned in a response that then serve as inputs to another request. |
|
@tjprescott @DominikMe Should I update something on the PR? We have checked in the change on Service side so we want to check this in. |
…e#16040) * Making user identity not required and adding Routype * Make the request and routeType not to be required * Update readme with new tags for API version * Prettier fix for json * Only making the AnyCast change. The non-identity will be a separate change * Update removing identity requirement * Update enum to correct version
…e#16040) * Making user identity not required and adding Routype * Make the request and routeType not to be required * Update readme with new tags for API version * Prettier fix for json * Only making the AnyCast change. The non-identity will be a separate change * Update removing identity requirement * Update enum to correct version
3 participants
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:
October 8.
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 label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
Adding new optional field routeType to the CommunicationRelayConfigurationRequest.
Also CommunicationRelayConfigurationRequest is optional, so the API can still be used as previous version. But now there will be the option to specify the routeType when calling the APIs.
-[ ] 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.
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.