Dev securityinsights microsoft.security insights 2022 04 01 preview security ml analytics settings#18337
Closed
Conversation
…w/2021-10-01-preview to version 2022-04-01-preview
|
Hi, @jungph808 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. vscswagger@microsoft.com |
|
Swagger pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
|
[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 pipeline can not start as the pull request has merge conflicts. |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @jungph808 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L48 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L93 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L136 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettingsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L188 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: enabled Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L328 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDefaultSettings Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2022-04-01-preview/SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings.json#L379 |
️️✔️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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @jungph808, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
pilor
added
ARMSignedOff
This was referenced Mar 22, 2022
dosegal
reviewed
Mar 23, 2022
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jungph808 is there a reason why this API is not modeled as part of the current Settings API? Have you considered this?
It seems strange that there is an API that today already includes several types of settings in the product (like Anomalies, Entity Analytics, UEBA), and another completely different API just for ML Settings. What do you think?
Contributor
Author
Hi @dosegal The current Settings Api is for controlling workspace settings, whereas SecurityMLAnalyticsSettings is more granular offering customization to individual blackbox Analytics settings. We thought the resources were too different to be modeled under the same Api. |
dosegal
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2022
25 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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 label "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[x] 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.