Moving latest stable API version from private repo to public repo by rsinghal26 · Pull Request #39553 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs

rsinghal26 · 2026-01-09T09:12:38Z

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.

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:
- edit this with your clarification

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.
A release plan has been created. If not, please create one as it will help guide you through the REST API and SDK creation process.

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.
For guidance on SDK breaking change review, refer to https://aka.ms/ci-fix.

….json

github-actions · 2026-01-09T09:12:57Z

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).

Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.

github-actions · 2026-01-09T09:17:31Z

API Change Check

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

Language	API Review for Package
Swagger	Informatica.DataManagement
TypeSpec	Informatica.DataManagement
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/placeholder/armplaceholder
Python	azure-mgmt-placeholder
Java	com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-placeholder
JavaScript	@azure/arm-placeholder

…ails and generation options

rsinghal26 · 2026-01-09T09:46:32Z

We are moving stable API version from private repo to stable repo because informatica is a GA service. all the breaking changes are already approved in below PRs:

2024-11-29-preview: Adding marketplaceSubscriptionStatus field for informatica by kanika-ms · Pull Request #20488 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr

2024-07-22-preview: Liftr Informatica API - preview version release 2024-07-22 by almasak · Pull Request #18953 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr

We have not added any new change compared with what we have in private spec repo in latest version 2025-11-27.

mentat9 · 2026-01-12T23:28:42Z

#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-manager/secret-prop" "TODO: Check if this is a secret and add @secret or update reason"

Looks like this suppression should be addressed.

Refers to: specification/informatica/Informatica.DataManagement.Management/main.tsp:535 in 5326229. [](commit_id = 5326229, deletion_comment = False)

mentat9 · 2026-01-12T23:36:03Z

@rsinghal26 - Thank-you for providing links to the earlier specs in the private repo. This helps cut down on the reviewer's workload. Couple of things to check:

Please verify the userContextToken property of ServerlessRuntimeUserContextProperties: if it's a secret it needs the @secret emitter, and the suppression should be removed. If it's not a secret, the suppression shouldn't be required.
Check the examples. Some include id properties with RP of Microsoft.DataManagement which mismatches the RP of the API (Informatica.DataManagement). This looks like a mistake.

rsinghal26 · 2026-01-13T05:44:31Z

@mentat9, thanks for the review this PR. I updated the namespace in the examples.
for the second suggestion you gave, can we check and update this in next PR? As we are planning to migrate our service from private repo to public repo without making change in the spec at the moment.

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:41:49Z

specification/informatica/Informatica.DataManagement.Management/tspconfig.yaml

    - "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-rulesets/resource-manager"
+parameters:
+  service-dir:
+    default: sdk/placeholder #!!!IMPORTANT!!! To ensure the emitter correctly produces SDK, this configuration is added by Azure SDK Team. Some configurations use placeholder values. For modifications, please refer to https://aka.ms/azsdk/specs/typespec-validation#sdktspconfigvalidation


placeholder

Is this intended? It had sdk/informaticadatamanagement value

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:42:14Z

specification/informatica/Informatica.DataManagement.Management/tspconfig.yaml

+    generate-test: true #!!!IMPORTANT!!! To ensure the emitter correctly produces SDK, this configuration is added by Azure SDK Team. Some configurations use placeholder values. For modifications, please refer to https://aka.ms/azsdk/specs/typespec-validation#sdktspconfigvalidation
+    generate-sample: true #!!!IMPORTANT!!! To ensure the emitter correctly produces SDK, this configuration is added by Azure SDK Team. Some configurations use placeholder values. For modifications, please refer to https://aka.ms/azsdk/specs/typespec-validation#sdktspconfigvalidation
+    experimental-extensible-enums: true #!!!IMPORTANT!!! To ensure the emitter correctly produces SDK, this configuration is added by Azure SDK Team. Some configurations use placeholder values. For modifications, please refer to https://aka.ms/azsdk/specs/typespec-validation#sdktspconfigvalidation
 linter:


placeholder values?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:43:04Z

specification/informatica/Informatica.DataManagement.Management/tspconfig.yaml

 options:
  "@azure-tools/typespec-autorest":
+    use-read-only-status-schema: true
    emitter-output-dir: "{project-root}/.."


Removed emit-common-types-schema: "never"?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:43:50Z

...nformatica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Operations_List_MaximumSet_Gen.json

          }
        ],
-        "nextLink": "tjhcbb"
+        "nextLink": "https://management.azure.com/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/operations?api-version=2024-07-22-preview&$skiptoken=eyJpZCI6ImVmemV3aG5rcGhsdGFhanBibW1tcG1reGNpZXFpIiwib3JpZ2luIjoiYXJ0aWNsZSIsInJlc291cmNlIjoieHZteHRjdHFsd3N1Z3ZxYmF1b3duYWx3cGppIn0="


$skiptoken=eyJpZCI6ImVmemV3aG5rcGhsdGFhanBibW1tcG1reGNpZXFpIiwib3JpZ2luIjoiYXJ0aWNsZSIsInJlc291cmNlIjoieHZteHRjdHFsd3N1Z3Z

Why is this token being merged?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:44:12Z

...taManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_CreateOrUpdate_MinimumSet_Gen.json

      },
      "body": {
-        "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+        "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/

Use dummy values

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:44:31Z

...atica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_Delete_MinimumSet_Gen.json

    "202": {
      "headers": {
-        "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+        "id": "https://management.azure.com/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/operations?api-version=2024-07-22-preview&$skiptoken=eyJpZCI6ImVmemV3aG5rcGhsdGFhanBibW1tcG1reGNpZXFpIiwib3JpZ2luIjoiYXJ0aWNsZSIsInJlc291cmNlIjoieHZteHRjdHFsd3N1Z3ZxYmF1b3duYWx3cGppIn0=",


https://management.azure.com/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/operations?api-version=2024-07-22-preview&$skiptoken=eyJpZCI6ImVmemV3aG5rcGhsdGFhanBibW1tcG1reGNpZXFpIiwib3JpZ2luIjoiYXJ0aWNsZSIsInJlc291cmNlIjoieHZteHRjdHFsd3N1Z3ZxYmF1b3duYWx3cGppIn0=",

Why is there a token in example?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:45:30Z

...nt.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_GetAllServerlessRuntimes_MaximumSet_Gen.json

              "subscriptionId": "zl",
              "region": "lrudpuvzcuh",
-              "serverlessArmResourceId": "/subscriptions/subid/resourceGroups/rg1/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/org1/serverlessRuntimes/serverlessRuntimeName"
+              "serverlessArmResourceId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C"


serverlessArmResourceId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C"

Is this an organization's id or serverless?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:45:49Z

...nt.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_GetAllServerlessRuntimes_MaximumSet_Gen.json

              "executionTimeout": "pbnxiricrjifreoiazmzeqiwu",
              "computeUnits": "ao",
-              "tenantId": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000",
+              "tenantId": "elbephnucclhjihcj",


elbephnucclhjihcj

Why?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:46:03Z

...ormatica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_Get_MaximumSet_Gen.json

            "organizationName": "nomzbvwe",
            "informaticaRegion": "zfqodqpbeflhedypiijdkc",
-            "singleSignOnUrl": "https://contoso.com/singlesignon"
+            "singleSignOnUrl": "https://microsoft.com/a"


"singleSignOnUrl": "https://microsoft.com/a"

Why this change?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:46:12Z

...ormatica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_Get_MaximumSet_Gen.json

        },
        "location": "pamjoudtssthlbhrnfjidr",
-        "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+        "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277

Use dummy values

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:46:31Z

...ormatica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_Get_MinimumSet_Gen.json

    "200": {
      "body": {
-        "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+        "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277

use dummy values

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:46:41Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_ListByResourceGroup_MaximumSet_Gen.json

                "organizationName": "nomzbvwe",
                "informaticaRegion": "zfqodqpbeflhedypiijdkc",
-                "singleSignOnUrl": "https://contoso.com/singlesignon"
+                "singleSignOnUrl": "https://microsoft.com/a"


singleSignOnUrl": "https://microsoft.com/a"

why this change?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:46:49Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_ListByResourceGroup_MaximumSet_Gen.json

            },
            "location": "pamjoudtssthlbhrnfjidr",
-            "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+            "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277

use dummy values

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:47:15Z

              "termId": "tcvvsxdjnjlfmjhmvwklptdmxetnzydxyuhfqchoubmtoeqbchnfxoxqzezlgpxdnzyvzgkynjxzzgetkqccxvpzahxattluqdipvbdktqmndfefitzuifqjpschzlbvixnvznkmmgjwvkplfhemnapsewgqxggdzdokryhv"

Any reason why this string is this long?

Refers to: specification/informatica/Informatica.DataManagement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_ListByResourceGroup_MaximumSet_Gen.json:30 in 834393b. [](commit_id = 834393b, deletion_comment = False)

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:47:48Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/Organizations_ListByResourceGroup_MaximumSet_Gen.json

-            "id": "cadokiejnrth",
+            "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",
            "name": "qmlpllxohjomejbeylyhlqwt",
            "type": "korjyotq",


korjyotq

Why are types not written correctly? The examples are not defined with correct values, please fix all of them

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:48:37Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/ServerlessRuntimes_CreateOrUpdate_MaximumSet_Gen.json

-            "vnetId": "/subscriptions/subid/resourceGroups/rg1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/HypernetVnet1",
-            "subnetId": "/subscriptions/subid/resourceGroups/rg1/providers/Microsoft.Networks/virtualNetworks/test-vnet/subnets/subnet1",
+            "vnetId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",
+            "subnetId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


These are not vnet or subnet ids

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:49:04Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/ServerlessRuntimes_CreateOrUpdate_MaximumSet_Gen.json

-              "vnetId": "/subscriptions/subid/resourceGroups/rg1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/HypernetVnet1",
-              "subnetId": "/subscriptions/subid/resourceGroups/rg1/providers/Microsoft.Networks/virtualNetworks/test-vnet/subnets/subnet1",
+              "vnetId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",
+              "subnetId": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",


sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:49:28Z

...agement.Management/examples/2024-05-08/ServerlessRuntimes_CreateOrUpdate_MaximumSet_Gen.json

+        },
+        "id": "/subscriptions/A0A3E464-6AA7-42BC-9EF1-65840CB55277/resourceGroups/rgopenapi/providers/Informatica.DataManagement/organizations/C",
        "name": "byzccgftqjthb",
        "type": "due",


"type": "due",

Why are types incorrect?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-14T10:50:59Z

...ation/informatica/resource-manager/Informatica.DataManagement/stable/2024-05-08/openapi.json

+          }
+        }
+      }
    },


Why this change in an older API version?

sanar-microsoft · 2026-01-15T05:52:14Z

...ation/informatica/resource-manager/Informatica.DataManagement/stable/2024-05-08/openapi.json

        "parameters": [
          {
-            "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json#/parameters/ApiVersionParameter"
+            "$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v5/types.json#/parameters/ApiVersionParameter"


As per offline discussion, no customer is using this API version through portal or client SDK, the change being made here is to be consistent with the API version spec in private repo.

This PR is introducing a breaking change that was previously approved in private repo, which shouldn't have been done IMO.

Because there are no users for this API version I'm approving this breaking change for an already released API version to maintain parity with private repo spec

Raja Singhal added 3 commits January 9, 2026 14:01

Added new version

6367d65

updated all files

617a0bb

refactor(informatica): update API version references to v5 in openapi…

3aa8a0e

….json

feat(typespec): add TypeScript emitter configuration with package det…

5326229

…ails and generation options

github-actions bot removed the ARMAutoSignedOff label Jan 9, 2026

mikekistler added the BreakingChange-Approved-Benign Changes are not breaking at the REST API level and have at most minor impact to generated SDKs. label Jan 9, 2026

github-actions bot added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed NotReadyForARMReview labels Jan 9, 2026

mentat9 added the ARMChangesRequested label Jan 12, 2026

github-actions bot added ARMAutoSignedOff and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jan 12, 2026

github-actions bot added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed ARMChangesRequested labels Jan 12, 2026

Updated examples

f129c3e

rsinghal26 added 2 commits January 13, 2026 05:49

updated remaining examples

c86a4e9

fix main.tsp

834393b

sanar-microsoft reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

sanar-microsoft reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

rsinghal26 closed this Jan 20, 2026

Conversation

rsinghal26 commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

PR review workflow diagram

Purpose of this PR

Due diligence checklist

Additional information

Getting help

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Next Steps to Merge

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

API Change Check

Uh oh!

rsinghal26 commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mentat9 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

mentat9 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rsinghal26 commented Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sanar-microsoft commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

rsinghal26 commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rsinghal26 commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rsinghal26 commented Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading