IMDS Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version#6846
IMDS Swagger: Adding Swagger spec for 2019-08-15 version#6846yungezz merged 15 commits intoAzure:masterfrom jianyunt:master
Conversation
In Testing, Please Ignore[Logs] (Generated from f0938f7, Iteration 20)
|
Automation for azure-sdk-for-goNothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-pythonNothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-python |
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
|
@OpenAPIBot sdkautomation rebuild |
|
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 |
# Conflicts: # specification/imds/data-plane/readme.md
|
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
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Data plane APIs aren't reviewed by ARM. Removing label.
| "required": false | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "mi_res_id", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing the name of the parameter is a breaking change (it was msi_res_id in the previous version). Why is this change necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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!
specification/imds/data-plane/Microsoft.InstanceMetadataService/stable/2019-08-15/imds.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
PhoenixHe-NV
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why we only have python sdk to generate in swagger-to-sdk section? Do you want to add other sdks?
|
@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. |
|
@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. |
|
@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? |
|
No actual API changes. No need for the Azure API review board to review. |
|
@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. |
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:
ARM API Review Checklist
Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.
Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.