Conversation
…ttps://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr into simanor-dev-security-Microsoft.Security-2023-01-01
Contributor
Author
|
The PR is created based on the updates in the private branch. The updates in the PR has already been reviewed and approved with this PR Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/10442 |
|
Hi, @kerend 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 Validation Report
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| pricings.json | 2023-01-01(bf55525) | 2022-03-01(main) |
| pricings.json | 2023-01-01(bf55525) | 2017-08-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L76:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a path that was found in the old version. Was path '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Security/pricings/{pricingName}' removed or restructured? Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L197:5 |
|
| The new version is missing a client parameter that was found in the old version. Was 'ResourceGroupName' removed or renamed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L348:3 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L352:3 |
|
| The operation id has been changed from 'Pricings_GetSubscriptionPricing' to 'Pricings_Get'. This will impact generated code. New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L74:7 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L119:7 |
|
| The operation id has been changed from 'Pricings_UpdateSubscriptionPricing' to 'Pricings_Update'. This will impact generated code. New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L123:7 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L156:7 |
|
| The new version is missing a property found in the old version. Was 'nextLink' renamed or removed? New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L174:7 Old: Microsoft.Security/preview/2017-08-01-preview/pricings.json#L289:7 |
️️✔️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-composite-v3 | package-composite-v3(bf55525) | package-composite-v3(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
| A PUT operation request body schema should be the same as its 200 response schema, to allow reusing the same entity between GET and PUT. If the schema of the PUT request body is a superset of the GET response body, make sure you have a PATCH operation to make the resource updatable. Operation: 'Pricings_Update' Request Model: 'parameters[3].schema' Response Model: 'responses[200].schema' Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L123 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The resource Pricing does not have a corresponding delete operation. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L73 |
|
The path for 'put' operation must be under a subscription and resource group. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L73 |
|
The resource name parameter 'pricingName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L73 |
|
The schema 'PricingList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L169 |
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Pricings_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L38 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L49 |
|
| The response of operation:'Pricings_Get' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L74 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L97 |
|
| The response of operation:'Pricings_Update' is defined without 'systemData'. Consider adding the systemData to the response. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L123 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'Pricings_Update' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L136 |
|
| Parameter 'api-version' is referenced but not defined in the global parameters section of Service Definition Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L137 |
|
| 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.Security/stable/2023-01-01/pricings.json#L242 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/security/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/security/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-composite-v3 |
️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️⚠️~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
API Test is not triggered due to precheck failure. Check pipeline log for details.
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView 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
|
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
ReadyForApiTest
ruowan
removed
the
WaitForARMFeedback
ruowan
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2023
Contributor
Author
|
This is a publish of a private PR: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/pull/10442 |
This was referenced Mar 27, 2023
ruowan
deleted the
published/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/simanor-dev-security-Microsoft.Security-2023-01-01
branch
This was referenced Mar 27, 2023
This was referenced Mar 27, 2023
JoshLove-msft
pushed a commit
to JoshLove-msft/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2023
…t.Security-2023-01-01' (Azure#23305) * Pricing new version 2023-01-01 * Rename additionalProperty * change to AgentlessDiscoveryForKubernetes * code revirew * Fix lint error * Rename Storage extensions * Remove the 207 response code + add errorMessage * Adding operationStatus * Add previous API version files * Override previous API version files * Adding PUT partial success example * DataSensitivityDiscovery to SensitiveDataDiscovery * Fix PR comments * PR comments fix * Fix PR comments * EnablementTime * . * . * . * . --------- Co-authored-by: Sivan Manor <simanor@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Reem Joron <rejoron@microsoft.com>
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
6 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.
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.