Skip to content

IMDS Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version#6846

Merged
yungezz merged 15 commits intoAzure:masterfrom
jianyunt:master
Aug 17, 2019
Merged

IMDS Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version#6846
yungezz merged 15 commits intoAzure:masterfrom
jianyunt:master

Conversation

@jianyunt
Copy link
Contributor

@jianyunt jianyunt commented Aug 2, 2019

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.

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Aug 2, 2019

In Testing, Please Ignore

[Logs] (Generated from f0938f7, Iteration 20)

Warning Python: test-repo-billy/azure-sdk-for-python [Logs] [Diff]
  • No packages generated.

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 2, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Aug 2, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-python

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@PhoenixHe-NV
Copy link

@OpenAPIBot sdkautomation rebuild

@jianyunt jianyunt changed the title Updated imds spec version for the hybrid RP support Swagger:Updated imds spec version for the hybrid RP support Aug 2, 2019
@jianyunt jianyunt changed the title Swagger:Updated imds spec version for the hybrid RP support Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version Aug 2, 2019
@jianyunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

jianyunt commented Aug 2, 2019

Hi @lirenhe and other admins, all checks are passed now. Please review the changes and approve and merge if possible. Thanks!

\cc @rifrankl @rikotcho @KumariSupriya @harijayms @edyoung

@lirenhe lirenhe added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 2, 2019
@jianyunt jianyunt changed the title Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version IMDS Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version Aug 13, 2019
@jianyunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @lirenhe and other admins, I have integrated the changes from IMDS 2019-08-01 and all checks are passed. Please let us know if anything we need to do to get the PR approved and merged?

@rifrankl @rikotcho @KumariSupriya @harijayms @edyoung

@ryansbenson ryansbenson removed the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Aug 13, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@ryansbenson ryansbenson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Data plane APIs aren't reviewed by ARM. Removing label.

@lirenhe lirenhe added the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label Aug 14, 2019
"required": false
},
{
"name": "mi_res_id",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changing the name of the parameter is a breaking change (it was msi_res_id in the previous version). Why is this change necessary?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The name change was based on code review feedback from the Identity team. But I leave it out for now I changed back to msi_res_id.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What does the API actually expect? Was the description incorrect earlier and this was a correction, or was this a planned change to the REST API?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not 100% sure if imds is responding mi_res_id today. So I'd rather leave this particular change to the Identity team.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This needs to be sorted out before we can merge the PR. The description has to be correct w. regards to the actual REST API.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@johanste , do you mean whether msi_res_id or mi_res_id should be sorted it now? I looked file history, it has been msi_res_id. So no change for this version.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jianyunt jianyunt Aug 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@johanste I looked identity team's source code, there are no changes in the history about msi_res_id. Also public docs are about msi_res_id.
This version is particularly for our hybrid scenario. No impact to the existing Azure IMDS.
If you have concerns, I can follow-up with the Metadata and Identity teams about it. However to fix the existing spec issues(if any), can we make a separate PR to fix the existing api versions all together. Thoughts?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assuming that the name in the swagger is what the REST API actually expects/uses, then we are good. From you explanation, that seems to be the case. What we should not do is check in a swagger that is incorrect and then later fix it.

If the service team intends to change the name in the REST API in the future, please make sure that they consult the azure api review board to determine if the change is warranted.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jianyunt jianyunt Aug 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agreed. teams should consult with the board first for any breaking changes. I will follow-up with the Metadata and Identity team to see if there are any inconsistencies between code and the spec.
For this particular PR, do you have any other concerns? If not, could you please approve it? thanks!

Copy link

@PhoenixHe-NV PhoenixHe-NV left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why we only have python sdk to generate in swagger-to-sdk section? Do you want to add other sdks?

@jianyunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NullMDR I am not sure if I got your point. And I see the build seems to cover sdk node, sdk java, go, python, etc. already.

@PhoenixHe-NV
Copy link

@jianyunt I mean the section here https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/6846/files#diff-1f6ca4d24ed36009a22cccc573434122R223

We will move to new automation system in a near furture and you need that section to contain configuration for other languages to generate sdk in the new system.

@jianyunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NullMDR what specific file do I need to change and how in order to adopt the new system you mentioned to cover other languages? it should be happening now or later?

@johanste johanste removed the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label Aug 15, 2019
@johanste
Copy link
Member

No actual API changes. No need for the Azure API review board to review.

@PhoenixHe-NV
Copy link

@jianyunt https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/f0938f745e66b378b3874224a929a56ff88cf5e9/specification/imds/data-plane/readme.md#swagger-to-sdk

You'd better update it before we switch to new sdk generation system. We'll upgrade to new system a few month later.

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.

8 participants