[API Management] New Api version introduced along with new contracts for the Diagnostics resource

[promoisha]

Please, do not merge yet. Thanks!

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.

[promoisha]

@solankisamir Samir, could you also take a look? Thanks!

[azuresdkciprbot]

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(89 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

[azuresdkciprbot]

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️34 new Warnings.(34 total)

Code	Id	Source	Message
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'Policy_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'PolicySnippets_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ApiOperationPolicy_ListByOperation' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ApiPolicy_ListByApi' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NotificationRecipientUser_ListByNotification' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NotificationRecipientEmail_ListByNotification' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'NetworkStatus_ListByLocation' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ProductPolicy_ListByProduct' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PageableOperation	R2029	Link	Based on the response model schema, operation 'QuotaByCounterKeys_ListByService' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension.
PostOperationIdContainsUrlVerb	R2066	Link	OperationId should contain the verb: 'updatecertificate' in:'ApiManagementService_UploadCertificate'. Consider updating the operationId
OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	R2063	Link	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'OperationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Operation' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'BodyDiagnosticSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'HttpMessageDiagnostic' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'PipelineDiagnosticSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'SamplingSettings' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Api_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'ApiCreateOrUpdateParameter' Response Model: 'ApiContract'
XmsEnumValidation	R2018	Link	The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: versioningScheme
XmsEnumValidation	R2018	Link	The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: storeName
DescriptionAndTitleMissing	R4000	Link	'apiVersionSet' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation.
AvoidNestedProperties	R2001	Link	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience
LongRunningOperationsWithLongRunningExtension	R2007	Link	The operation 'Backend_Reconnect' returns 202 status code, which indicates a long running operation, please enable "x-ms-long-running-operation.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Certificate_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'CertificateCreateOrUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'CertificateContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'EmailTemplate_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'EmailTemplateUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'EmailTemplateContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Group_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'GroupCreateParameters' Response Model: 'GroupContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Subscription_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'SubscriptionCreateParameters' Response Model: 'SubscriptionContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'Tag_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'TagCreateUpdateParameters' Response Model: 'TagContract'
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'TagDescription_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'TagDescriptionCreateParameters' Response Model: 'TagDescriptionContract'
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToApi' 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.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromApi' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToOperation' 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.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromOperation' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutInOperationName	R1006	Link	'PUT' operation 'Tag_AssignToProduct' 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.
DeleteInOperationName	R1009	Link	'DELETE' operation 'Tag_DetachFromProduct' should use method name 'Delete'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change.
PutRequestResponseScheme	R2017	Link	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: 'User_CreateOrUpdate' Request Model: 'UserCreateParameters' Response Model: 'UserContract'

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

[hovsepm]

Please ping me directly via email or IM when you will be ready to merge.

[solankisamir]

@promoisha can you take a look at the 3 failures at
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378838912

[solankisamir]

format the file in VS Code #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

missing description #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

missing description. #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

missing description #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

missing top level description #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

we can define it an an enum, so it becomes easy in the client. Also set the modelAsString property to true, so it would not be considered breaking change, when you add more values. Look for x-ms-enum property in the spec. #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

description [](start = 11, length = 11)

does it have a max value. #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

any change to the $filter contract after change to the DiagnosticContract #Resolved

[promoisha]

no changes here

[azuresdkciprbot]

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(30 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

[azuresdkciprbot]

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(89 total)

❌0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

[solankisamir]

allOf [](start = 11, length = 5)

why "allOf" ... and why not a simple $ref
request : { "$ref": "#/definitions/HttpMessageDiagnostic", "description: "" } #Closed

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

why "allOf" and why not a simple "$ref" #Closed

[solankisamir]

same for others which define only one $ref

---

In reply to: 189126276 [](ancestors = 189126276)

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

"enabled": true [](start = 8, length = 15)

"enabled": true [](start = 8, length = 15)

The CI is complaining about this property in the example https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669 #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

true [](start = 19, length = 4)

true [](start = 19, length = 4)

CI is complaining about this property
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669 #Resolved

[promoisha]

fixed

[solankisamir]

            }

CI is throwing errors for this
https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/378880669

---

Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementTenantConfigurationDeploy.json:27 in 239b96a. [](commit_id = 239b96a057b3647273e25d9ee56764587d71b4cd, deletion_comment = False)

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-libraries-for-java

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2135

[marstr]

Offline @promoisha has asked to merge this PR.

However, as @solankisamir has pointed out, there are unaddressed linter errors. Also, this is a huge PR. @promoisha, could you give me context about:

1. The API Version this is based on, so I can scrape the differences locally.
2. Why ARM hasn't been requested for review on this.
3. If there is a former PR in the private repository.

[solankisamir]

          }

can you sync the latest changes from the version 2018-01-01

---

Refers to: specification/apimanagement/resource-manager/Microsoft.ApiManagement/preview/2018-06-01-preview/examples/ApiManagementServiceGetNetworkStatus.json:47 in 412a225. [](commit_id = 412a225, deletion_comment = False)

[promoisha]

@marstr

1. 2018-01-01
2. because the introduced version is the preview one
3. No, this is the only PR

[promoisha]

@solankisamir done

[promoisha]

@marstr @solankisamir regarding linter errors - there's nothing that this PR has introduced. The only suspicious thing is this: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757. But nothing has changed there and the response contract is valid (the very same example in the previous api version doesn't trigger this error).

[marstr]

@promoisha says:
2. because the introduced version is the preview one

Ah, sorry I believe that we still look for ARM sign-off on preview API Versions.

I'm adding the "WaitForARMFeedback" label, but it should go quick because the ARM team should only really have to review the changes from the API Version this one is based on.

[solankisamir]

ApiIdParameter [](start = 49, length = 14)

this file also changed today for a bug fix.

[marstr]

We should at least fix this model error: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757#L1048

In terms of this error: https://travis-ci.org/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/jobs/392948757#L1052
I'd like to see it fixed, because it's basically saying that null does not fit the json.org definition of a JSON object. However, if it's really a carry-over from the last API-Version then I can let it go.

Other than that, nothing jumped out to me :)

[solankisamir]

Once you can sync the latest changes from apimproducts.json, I am good for signoff

[promoisha]

@solankisamir updated the apimproducts.json with latest changes

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

[promoisha]

@marstr validation error is fixed now

[marstr]

Once @ravbhatnagar has his review in, I'll be ready to merge.

[promoisha]

@ravbhatnagar could you please look into this PR?