adding purge protection vault property by dragav · Pull Request #2478 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs

dragav · 2018-02-12T19:42:29Z

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 · 2018-02-12T19:44:44Z

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

A PR has been created for you based on this PR content.

Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#1105

schaabs

The changes you have here look good, but you also need to update the examples createVault.json, getVault.json, and updateVault.json

dragav · 2018-02-12T19:59:35Z

I would prefer not to include this in the examples. Activating this property is irreversible and creates undeletable objects. The value of including it in the examples is marginal, whereas the effect can be quite confusing. Please consider this argument and let me know if you still think I should make that change. Thanks.

(I could add separate files to exemplify soft delete/purge protection..)

…perties, respectively. Updating examples with and without soft delete and purge protection flags.

AutorestCI · 2018-02-13T01:57:08Z

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2017

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-02-13T02:00:25Z

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/keyvault/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0
After the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

schaabs · 2018-02-13T02:23:01Z

After an offline discussion I agree this should not be added to the create and update examples. Changes look good to me.

schaabs · 2018-02-13T17:20:45Z

@sergey-shandar can we go ahead and merge these changes?

sergey-shandar · 2018-02-13T18:42:42Z

@schaabs LGTM except it may introduce breaking changes for some SDKs. We also need ARM approval for this. @ravbhatnagar

schaabs

@sergey-shandar you're right this is breaking. @dragav please see comments about property ordering

schaabs · 2018-02-13T18:48:36Z

-          "description": "Property to specify whether the 'soft delete' functionality is enabled for this key vault. It does not accept false value."
+          "description": "Property specifying whether recoverable deletion is enabled for this key vault. Setting this property to true activates the soft delete feature, whereby vaults or vault entities can be recovered after deletion. Enabling this functionality is irreversible - that is, the property does not accept false as its value."
+        },
+        "enablePurgeProtection": {


This needs to be moved after create mode to avoid breaking changes in the sdk

schaabs · 2018-02-13T18:48:47Z

-          "description": "Property to specify whether the 'soft delete' functionality is enabled for this key vault. It does not accept false value."
+          "description": "Property specifying whether recoverable deletion ('soft' delete) is enabled for this key vault. The property may not be set to false."
+        },
+        "enablePurgeProtection": {


This needs to be moved after create mode to avoid breaking changes in the sdk

azuresdkciprbot · 2018-02-13T19:04:10Z

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/keyvault/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0
After the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

schaabs

LGTM

schaabs · 2018-02-15T16:15:03Z

@ravbhatnagar are these changes ready to merge?

ravbhatnagar · 2018-02-16T00:24:56Z

@schaabs - Apologies but I dont follow. How does moving it after createMode make it non-breaking?

schaabs · 2018-02-16T00:33:15Z

@ravbhatnagar The breaking change I was referring to is not in the API itself but the clients generated by autorest. Adding the property before preexisting properties changes the order of parameters in the model constructors. So even though these are optional parameters, it breaks callers who don't specify the parameters by name, but only by order. Adding it after all the preexisting properties causes the generated code to have one more optional parameter at the end, so callers who don't specify this parameter will not break.

ravbhatnagar · 2018-02-16T08:14:54Z

@schaabs - Interesting, I wasnt aware of this. Anyhow, how will it impact the scenario where someone sets this property using the portal and then GETs this resource using an older SDK which ignores this property since it didnt understand it. Then does a PUT on the same resource, without this property in the payload. How does the value of this property on the server change? Does it get overwritten which could be unintentional from the user perspective in this case?

schaabs · 2018-02-16T16:24:01Z

@ravbhatnagar This is handled by the server behavior. This property can only be set on a vault once, and when set cannot be unset. This is documented in the description of the property "Enabling this functionality is irreversible". Once this property has been set, subsequent PUT operations which do not have the property specified will have no effect on the properties value.

ravbhatnagar · 2018-02-21T02:15:25Z

Signing off based on comments from @schaabs . it wont be an unintentional change as the service will handle it.

adding purge protection vault property

e331ee2

dragav requested a review from schaabs February 12, 2018 19:42

azuresdkci assigned sergey-shandar Feb 12, 2018

schaabs suggested changes Feb 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

Expanding the description of the soft delete and purge protection pro…

3627cad

…perties, respectively. Updating examples with and without soft delete and purge protection flags.

AutorestCI mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2018

[AutoPR keyvault/resource-manager] adding purge protection vault property Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#1970

Closed

schaabs approved these changes Feb 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

sergey-shandar added potential-sdk-breaking-change WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Feb 13, 2018

schaabs suggested changes Feb 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

relocating the newly introduced property to the end of the schema

cc21704

schaabs approved these changes Feb 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

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 Feb 21, 2018

schaabs removed the potential-sdk-breaking-change label Feb 21, 2018

schaabs merged commit 2ce6d93 into Azure:master Feb 21, 2018

This was referenced Feb 21, 2018

[AutoPR keyvault/resource-manager] adding purge protection vault property Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2017

Closed

[AutoPR keyvault/resource-manager] adding purge protection vault property Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#1104

Closed

Conversation

dragav commented Feb 12, 2018 • edited by azuresdkci Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR information

Quality of Swagger

Uh oh!

AutorestCI commented Feb 12, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Uh oh!

schaabs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dragav commented Feb 12, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AutorestCI commented Feb 13, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Uh oh!

azuresdkciprbot commented Feb 13, 2018

Uh oh!

schaabs commented Feb 13, 2018

Uh oh!

schaabs commented Feb 13, 2018

Uh oh!

sergey-shandar commented Feb 13, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

schaabs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

schaabs Feb 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

schaabs Feb 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

azuresdkciprbot commented Feb 13, 2018

Uh oh!

schaabs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

schaabs commented Feb 15, 2018

Uh oh!

ravbhatnagar commented Feb 16, 2018

Uh oh!

schaabs commented Feb 16, 2018

Uh oh!

ravbhatnagar commented Feb 16, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

schaabs commented Feb 16, 2018

Uh oh!

ravbhatnagar commented Feb 21, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

dragav commented Feb 12, 2018 •

edited by azuresdkci

Loading

AutorestCI commented Feb 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

dragav commented Feb 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

AutorestCI commented Feb 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

sergey-shandar commented Feb 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ravbhatnagar commented Feb 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading