Skip to content

Conversation

@ajashant-msft
Copy link
Member

Choose a PR Template

Switch to "Preview" on this description then select one of the choices below.

Click here to open a PR for a Data Plane API.

Click here to open a PR for a Control Plane (ARM) API.

Click here to open a PR for only SDK configuration.

@openapi-pipeline-app
Copy link

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Mar 10, 2025

Next Steps to Merge

Next steps that must be taken to merge this PR:
  • ❌ This PR targets either the main branch of the public specs repo or the RPSaaSMaster branch of the private specs repo. These branches are not intended for iterative development. Therefore, you must acknowledge you understand that after this PR is merged, the APIs are considered shipped to Azure customers. Any further attempts at in-place modifications to the APIs will be subject to Azure's versioning and breaking change policies. Additionally, for control plane APIs, you must acknowledge that you are following all the best practices documented by ARM at aka.ms/armapibestpractices. If you do intend to release the APIs to your customers by merging this PR, add the PublishToCustomers label to your PR in acknowledgement of the above. Otherwise, retarget this PR onto a feature branch, i.e. with prefix release- (see aka.ms/azsdk/api-versions#release--branches).
  • ❌ This PR is in purview of the ARM review (label: ARMReview). This PR must get ARMSignedOff label from an ARM reviewer.
    This PR is not ready for ARM review (label: NotReadyForARMReview). This PR will not be reviewed by ARM until relevant problems are fixed. Consult the rest of this Next Steps to Merge comment for details.
    Once the blocking problems are addressed, add to the PR a comment with contents /azp run. Automation will re-evaluate this PR and if everything looks good, it will add WaitForARMFeedback label which will put this PR on the ARM review queue.
    For details of the ARM review, see aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review
  • ❌ This PR is NotReadyForARMReview because it has the BreakingChangeReviewRequired label.
  • ❌ This PR has at least one breaking change (label: BreakingChangeReviewRequired).
    To unblock this PR, follow the process at aka.ms/brch.
  • ❌ The required check named Swagger Avocado 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

@openapi-pipeline-app
Copy link

openapi-pipeline-app bot commented Mar 10, 2025

Generated ApiView

Language Package Name ApiView Link
Go sdk/resourcemanager/storage/armstorage Create ApiView timeout. Package is too large and we cannot create ApiView for it.
Java azure-resourcemanager-storage-generated https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/e3b9b65cf4ba4648b875e20c6221602e?revisionId=e7c1e5f8beed438f933c125278fa8996
.Net Azure.ResourceManager.Storage There is no API change compared with the previous version
JavaScript @azure/arm-storage There is no API change compared with the previous version
Python azure-mgmt-storage https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/0b9508287b19466db3e14265831ea6d7?revisionId=5e7644d029dc4251a28c567258e6f7ec

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the Storage Storage Service (Queues, Blobs, Files) label Mar 10, 2025
@azure-sdk
Copy link
Collaborator

API change check

APIView has identified API level changes in this PR and created following API reviews.

Microsoft.Storage

Copy link
Member

@blueww blueww left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. Please indicate what's the rest API change for the new API version, besides the API version change.
  2. Please split the PR to commits: 1. Copy latest API version without any change to new API version folder with 1 commit, 2. only change the API version in the new API version folder with 1 commit, 3. Add the new rest API change with several commits
  3. Please don't merge the PR before this API version is generally available in all regions, or we will get customer issue. We have get customer issue that 2024-01-01 is not available on chinanorth3 (but swagger PR merged), and still not mitigated.

Besides that, if the PR won't be ready to be merged to public swagger repo in short time, please don't raise PR to public repo. Instead raise PR to private repo https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr, if you only want the rest API change be reviewed.

@ajashant-msft
Copy link
Member Author

  1. Please indicate what's the rest API change for the new API version, besides the API version change.
  2. Please split the PR to commits: 1. Copy latest API version without any change to new API version folder with 1 commit, 2. only change the API version in the new API version folder with 1 commit, 3. Add the new rest API change with several commits
  3. Please don't merge the PR before this API version is generally available in all regions, or we will get customer issue. We have get customer issue that 2024-01-01 is not available on chinanorth3 (but swagger PR merged), and still not mitigated.

Besides that, if the PR won't be ready to be merged to public swagger repo in short time, please don't raise PR to public repo. Instead raise PR to private repo https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr, if you only want the rest API change be reviewed.

Hi,

  1. There are no REST API changes in this PR. The only real change is in storage.json where we are ONLY adding a new property in the existing property bag:image
  2. As mentioned above there is NO new rest api. Just an extra property in the property bag - see storage.json.
  3. We want these changes to be available in Canary by end of this month. How do we do that?

@ajashant-msft ajashant-msft requested a review from blueww March 19, 2025 16:50
"StorageAccounts"
],
"operationId": "StorageAccounts_Failover",
"description": "A failover request can be triggered for a storage account in the event a primary endpoint becomes unavailable for any reason. The failover occurs from the storage account's primary cluster to the secondary cluster for RA-GRS accounts. The secondary cluster will become primary after failover and the account is converted to LRS. In the case of a Planned Failover, the primary and secondary clusters are swapped after failover and the account remains geo-replicated. Failover should continue to be used in the event of availability issues as Planned failover is only available while the primary and secondary endpoints are available. The primary use case of a Planned Failover is disaster recovery testing drills. This type of failover is invoked by setting FailoverType parameter to 'Planned'. Learn more about the failover options here- https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/storage/common/storage-disaster-recovery-guidance",
Copy link
Member

@blueww blueww Mar 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"en-us" in the doc link should be removed.

It looks this PR is not based on the latest swagger in public repo.

],
"description": "Settings for Azure Files identity based authentication."
},
"SmbOAuthSettings": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you need PSH/CLI support?
If so , please mail to me, and share the PM contact, release type, release schedule, feature/rest API spec.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need Powershell/CLI support to update property.
Priyanka Gangal is our PM.
Release type is 1P by Sept2025. 3P support will come only after that (dates not finalized until 1P ships).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please mail to me, and include feature PM (and other contact if necessary) in the mail.

What do you mean by "1P" and "3P"?

And please organize the commit in this PR per my comments #33106 (comment)

@blueww
Copy link
Member

blueww commented Mar 20, 2025

  1. Please indicate what's the rest API change for the new API version, besides the API version change.
  2. Please split the PR to commits: 1. Copy latest API version without any change to new API version folder with 1 commit, 2. only change the API version in the new API version folder with 1 commit, 3. Add the new rest API change with several commits
  3. Please don't merge the PR before this API version is generally available in all regions, or we will get customer issue. We have get customer issue that 2024-01-01 is not available on chinanorth3 (but swagger PR merged), and still not mitigated.

Besides that, if the PR won't be ready to be merged to public swagger repo in short time, please don't raise PR to public repo. Instead raise PR to private repo https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr, if you only want the rest API change be reviewed.

Hi,

  1. There are no REST API changes in this PR. The only real change is in storage.json where we are ONLY adding a new property in the existing property bag:image
  2. As mentioned above there is NO new rest api. Just an extra property in the property bag - see storage.json.
  3. We want these changes to be available in Canary by end of this month. How do we do that?

for #2, please split this PR per requirements. Don;t merge the API version change together with the real API change to same commit. This is to help review of the real API change.

For #3, If the change is not ready to be public, the PR should not be file on the public repo. For only review purpose, please file the PR to private repo: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr.
And make sure don't merge the PR before the new API version really works in all regions (include usgov, mooncake ...)

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants