Skip to content

Add the MemorySizeInGb parameter to the swagger documentation for 202…#30912

Merged
ericshape merged 2 commits intoAzure:release-sql-Microsoft.Sql-2024-08-01-previewfrom
UrosKrsticMIPerf:add-MemorySizeInGb-for-sql-mi
Oct 10, 2024
Merged

Add the MemorySizeInGb parameter to the swagger documentation for 202…#30912
ericshape merged 2 commits intoAzure:release-sql-Microsoft.Sql-2024-08-01-previewfrom
UrosKrsticMIPerf:add-MemorySizeInGb-for-sql-mi

Conversation

@UrosKrsticMIPerf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@UrosKrsticMIPerf UrosKrsticMIPerf commented Oct 8, 2024

…4-08-01 API

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

Tip

Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the Getting help section at the bottom of this PR description.

PR review workflow diagram

Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.

spec_pr_review_workflow_diagram

Purpose of this PR

What's the purpose of this PR? Check the specific option that applies. This is mandatory!

  • New resource provider.
  • New API version for an existing resource provider. (If API spec is not defined in TypeSpec, the PR should have been created in adherence to OpenAPI specs PR creation guidance).
  • Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
  • Update existing version to fix OpenAPI spec quality issues in S360.
  • Convert existing OpenAPI spec to TypeSpec spec (do not combine this with implementing changes for a new API version).
  • Other, please clarify:
    • Removing an old parameter, and renaming in to MemorySizeInGb. The feature is not even in private preview, no customers can use the parameter to begin with, as there are gatekeepers and FSs in place. The old API-s starting with 2023-08-01 will use the old parameter, but with this new release of 2024-08-01 we want to set the actual name of the parameter used for our feature. The old parameter should be at least set in swagger documentation as deprecated, if not fully removed.

Due diligence checklist

To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood
and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:

  • I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
  • I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
    ARM resource provider contract and
    REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
    I understand this is required before I can proceed to the diagram Step 2, "ARM API changes review", for this PR.

Additional information

Viewing API changes

For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.

Suppressing failures

If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
suppressions guide to get approval.

Getting help

  • First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the Purpose of this PR and Due diligence checklist.
  • If you don't have permissions to remove or add labels to the PR, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories
  • To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the Next Steps to Merge comment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state.
  • For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
    and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
  • For help with ARM review (PR workflow diagram Step 2), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
  • If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in queued state, please add a comment with contents /azp run.
    This should result in a new comment denoting a PR validation pipeline has started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.
  • If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.

@openapi-pipeline-app
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Next Steps to Merge

✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.

@openapi-pipeline-app
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Generated ApiView

Language Package Name ApiView Link
Go sdk/resourcemanager/sql/armsql There is no API change compared with the previous version
JavaScript @azure/arm-sql There is no API change compared with the previous version
Swagger Microsoft.Sql https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/86f9467cec6a49f899d90b4872280851?revisionId=45c3c8fa53a14d66b29ec326e27b50cb

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added customer-reported Issues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization. SQL labels Oct 8, 2024
@UrosKrsticMIPerf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

@ericshape
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@UrosKrsticMIPerf please fix the typo in the swagger file and the upstream change in the DSMainDev Side.

@UrosKrsticMIPerf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@UrosKrsticMIPerf please fix the typo in the swagger file and the upstream change in the DSMainDev Side.

@ericshape could you point me to which file or line where the typo is located, I can't seem to find it.

@ericshape
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@UrosKrsticMIPerf please fix the typo in the swagger file and the upstream change in the DSMainDev Side.

@ericshape could you point me to which file or line where the typo is located, I can't seem to find it.
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/30912/checks?check_run_id=31250373234

image

@ericshape
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@UrosKrsticMIPerf please fix the typo in the swagger file and the upstream change in the DSMainDev Side.

@ericshape could you point me to which file or line where the typo is located, I can't seem to find it.

what is "Maintance"?

@UrosKrsticMIPerf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@UrosKrsticMIPerf please fix the typo in the swagger file and the upstream change in the DSMainDev Side.

@ericshape could you point me to which file or line where the typo is located, I can't seem to find it.

what is "Maintance"?

Fixed it.
image

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ericshape ericshape left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
text message change only.

@ericshape ericshape removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Oct 9, 2024
@ericshape ericshape self-requested a review October 9, 2024 18:13
@ericshape ericshape added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Oct 9, 2024
@raosuhas raosuhas added the ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review label Oct 9, 2024
@openapi-pipeline-app openapi-pipeline-app bot removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Oct 9, 2024
@ericshape ericshape removed the customer-reported Issues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization. label Oct 10, 2024
@ericshape ericshape merged commit c2bf2a2 into Azure:release-sql-Microsoft.Sql-2024-08-01-preview Oct 10, 2024
ericshape pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2025
* adding MemorySizeInGb to swagger #30912

* adding #31080 and #31062

* prettier fix

* prettiercheck fix
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ARMReview ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review resource-manager SQL

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants