Conversation
In Testing, Please Ignore[Logs] (Generated from bc437ef, Iteration 5)
|
Automation for azure-sdk-for-pythonA PR has been created for you based on this PR content. Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR: |
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
Automation for azure-sdk-for-goEncountered a Subprocess error: (azure-sdk-for-go)
Command: ['/usr/local/bin/autorest', '/tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.md', '--go', '--go-sdk-folder=/tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/src/github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go', '--multiapi', '--preview-chk', '--use=@microsoft.azure/autorest.go@~2.1.137', '--use-onever', '--verbose'] AutoRest code generation utility [version: 2.0.4283; node: v10.15.3]
(C) 2018 Microsoft Corporation.
https://aka.ms/autorest
There is a new version of AutoRest available (2.0.4407).
> You can install the newer version with with npm install -g autorest@latest
Loading AutoRest core '/root/.autorest/@microsoft.azure_autorest-core@2.0.4407/node_modules/@microsoft.azure/autorest-core/dist' (2.0.4407)
Including configuration file 'file:///tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.go.md'
Loading AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/autorest.go' (~2.1.137->2.1.137)
Loading AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/autorest.modeler' (2.3.38->2.3.38)
Processing batch task - {"tag":"package-2018-08-preview"} .
Including configuration file 'file:///tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.go.md'
Processing batch task - {"tag":"package-2019-04"} .
Including configuration file 'file:///tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.go.md'
Processing batch task - {"tag":"package-2019-05"} .
Including configuration file 'file:///tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.go.md'
Processing batch task - {"tag":"package-2019-08"} .
Including configuration file 'file:///tmp/tmpxsfp1mxn/rest/specification/frontdoor/resource-manager/readme.go.md'
Failure during batch task - {"tag":"package-2019-08"} -- Error: [Exception] No input files provided.
Use --help to get help information..
[Exception] No input files provided.
Use --help to get help information. |
…gs, FrontendEndpoints, BackendPool
|
Hi @sergey-shandar could you pls review this PR? |
sergey-shandar
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
@johncrane could you resolve conflicts? |
|
Hi @johncrane @sergey-shandar, what is the latest status for this PR as it is pending for a long time? |
ravbhatnagar
left a comment
ravbhatnagar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it may be quicker to get this reviewed and signed off over a call. So please set up a review with armapireview.
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "paths": { | ||
| "/providers/Microsoft.Network/checkFrontDoorNameAvailability": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per ARM RPC, checkNameAvailability should be modeled as pointed out below - https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/proxy-api-reference.md#check-name-availability-requests
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/providers/Microsoft.Network/checkFrontDoorNameAvailability": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comment as above.
| "$ref": "#/definitions/FrontDoor" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "202": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For async, using the 201 + non-terminal provisioning state + azure async operation header is the recommended path. Looks like here you are using the 202 + location header pattern. NRP uses 202 pattern for existing types. but for new types, please consider 201. There are advantages of using the 201 pattern.
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Network/frontDoors/{frontDoorName}": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
patch support missing for top level resource.
| "x-ms-long-running-operation": true | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Network/frontDoors/{frontDoorName}/frontendEndpoints/{frontendEndpointName}/enableHttps": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can the enable and disable https scenario be achieved by a PATCH operation on frontdoor resource itself - like updating the property on frontdoor resource which contains this setting.
| "$ref": "#/definitions/RulesEngine" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "202": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
see above comment on async. 201 recommended
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "RulesEngine": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure if these scenarios could be achieved through Azure policy. Have you checked with Policy team?
|
Hi @johncrane, as the PR is pending for a long time, let us know whether you still need it? |
|
close it as no response for a long time, pls reopen it when it need |
9 participants
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.