Storage Blob swagger to typespec migration

[catalinaperalta]

Data 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.

API Info: The Basics

Most of the information about your service should be captured in the issue that serves as your API Spec engagement record.

• Link to API Spec engagement record issue:

Is this review for (select one):

• a private preview
• a public preview
• GA release

Change Scope

^{This section will help us focus on the specific parts of your API that are new or have been modified.
Please share a link to the design document for the new APIs, a link to the previous API Spec document (if applicable), and the root paths that have been updated.}

• Design Document:
• Previous API Spec Doc:
• Updated paths:

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
Swagger-Suppression-Process
to get approval.

❔Got questions? Need additional info?? We are here to help!

Contact us!

The Azure API Review Board is dedicated to helping you create amazing APIs. You can read about our mission and learn more about our process on our wiki.

• 💬 Teams Channel
• 💌 email

Click here for links to tools, specs, guidelines & other good stuff

Tooling

• Open API validation tools were run on this PR. Go here to see how to fix errors
• Spectral Linting

Guidelines & Specifications

• Azure REST API Guidelines
• OpenAPI Style Guidelines
• Azure Breaking Change Policy

Helpful Links

• Schedule a data plane REST API spec review

Getting help

• First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom.
• 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.
• 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.

[catalinaperalta]

Why is this operation being renamed? and should it have been done in client.tsp?

[catalinaperalta]

@vincenttran-msft please regenerate the openapi spec based off of your recent commits. The typespec validation step is failing again.

[vincenttran-msft]

Hi @catalinaperalta , sorry about this. I was trying to get a Rust SDK PR merged through and our process was typically to hold the typespec change while in progress until ready to merge. Since we typically see red in the CI I did not think to stop and validate for at least the Typespec Validation Step.

I have opened the following: #36594 which addresses the use of the Private header instead of fully omitting.

As for the renames, we previously were using the @@clientName decorator in client.tsp, but eventually landed on simply renaming it in the routes.tsp. (other examples i.e. setHttpHeaders -> setProperties).

If this was the incorrect solution, please let me know the correct path forward and I can go back and resolve all instances. I believe the reason why we landed on renames in routes.tsp because we did not want to repeat @@clientName decorators for all the languages when we eventually migrate all languages to TypeSpec.

Edit: I have since merged the above, to correct the use of Private Date instead of fully omitting. Any other suggested fixes will be done in a future PR.

[jalauzon-msft]

@catalinaperalta, @lmazuel please see my response in internal email thread regarding this. These types of breaking changes that Vincent is making are going to need to keep happening as we develop the Rust SDK further. We are not considering this spec a stable spec until Rust is fully released.

[catalinaperalta]

@vincenttran-msft please look at the errors in the typespec validation check and address. You need to regenerate the openapi spec like I mentioned in my earlier comments.

@jalauzon-msft let's continue discussing in today's sync with Scott :)

[github-actions]

Next Steps to Merge

Important checks have failed. As of today they are not blocking this PR, but in near future they may.
Addressing the following failures is highly recommended:

• ⚠️ The check named SDK Validation Status has failed. Refer to the check in the PR's 'Checks' tab for details on how to fix it and consult the aka.ms/ci-fix guide

Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.