Skip to content

Conversation

@ramparab
Copy link
Contributor

Latest improvements:

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

  • I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
  • The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
  • adding/removing APIs.
  • adding/removing properties.
  • adding/removing API-version.
  • adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
    Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

@ramparab
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsgouda: yes this has been through API review and got approved. @bojunehsu on this thread drove the whole process.

@ramparab
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dsgouda: I looked into squashing the commit history for just my changes but it looked bit tricky. Any suggestions are appreciated.

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented May 28, 2019

@dsgouda: I looked into squashing the commit history for just my changes but it looked bit tricky. Any suggestions are appreciated.

git rebase -i <first_commit_id> should work, what issues are you running into

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented May 28, 2019

@ramparab please fix the linter issues here

}
],
"x-ms-parameterized-host": {
"hostTemplate": "{Endpoint}/formrecognizer/v1.0-preview",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are URLs dependent on api version

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, this is the convention for Cognitive Services.

],
"responses": {
"202": {
"description": "The service has accepted the request and will start processing later. It will return 'Accepted' immediately and include an 'Operation-Location' header. Client side should further query the operation status using the URL specified in this header. The 'Operation-Location' URL will expire in 48 hours.",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks like a long running operation

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is. Due to consistency with existing Cognitive Service APIs, we are not able to adopt the latest conventions. The API review board has agreed with this design.


``` yaml $(tag) == 'release_1_0'
input-file: preview/v1.0/FormRecognizer.json
input-file:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Though it's implied, it is a good idea to include ocr.json

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously, we were hoping to only reference a subset of definitions from the CV ocr.json. But as the build validation scripts end up validating even unreferenced definitions, we are removing them. So we can add ocr.json explicitly to the list of input files.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A. Why does ocr.json have unreferenced definitions?
B. Regardless of whether these definitions are used, violations must be addressed

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ramparab could you address this too?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done.

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented May 30, 2019

@ramparab there are still linter errors being reported here

Copy link
Contributor

@dsgouda dsgouda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@dsgouda dsgouda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@dsgouda dsgouda removed the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label May 30, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants