[EventGrid/ACR] Add schema of ACR events published to Event Grid

[djyou]

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]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#1973

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Was unable to create SDK azure-sdk-for-go PR for this closed PR.

[djyou]

/cc @kalyanaj @sajayantony @SteveLas

[azuresdkciprbot]

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/eventgrid/data-plane/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.

[kalyanaj]

For all the types referenced here (EventContent, Actor, Target, etc.), it looks to me that they should be qualified with the prefix "ContainerRegistry" as all these types will get generated under the same namespace Microsoft.Azure.EventGrid.Models. @lmazuel, what do you think, is there a better approach?

[djyou]

EventContent can be prefixed with ContainerRegistry for sure. We had a similar issue with the naming here in our own models that types such as Target, Request, and Source are from standard docker notification schema but they may conflict with other models in the same namespace.

Are you generating data-plane models into SDKs?

[azuresdkciprbot]

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/eventgrid/data-plane/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.

[kalyanaj]

Looks good to me.

[lmazuel]

LGTM