Skip to content

Comments

Create proxy.json#7797

Merged
mmyyrroonn merged 5 commits intoAzure:masterfrom
hrasheed-msft:patch-2
Dec 5, 2019
Merged

Create proxy.json#7797
mmyyrroonn merged 5 commits intoAzure:masterfrom
hrasheed-msft:patch-2

Conversation

@hrasheed-msft
Copy link
Contributor

Swagger specification for HDInsight Kafka REST proxy

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.

Swagger specification for HDInsight Kafka REST proxy
@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Nov 19, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Unable to detect any generation context from this PR.

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Nov 19, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Unable to detect any generation context from this PR.

@mmyyrroonn mmyyrroonn added the APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team. label Nov 19, 2019
@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

"tags" : [ {
"name" : "v1consumer",
"description" : "Consume messages"
}, {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you refine the structure to

{
},
{
},

"get" : {
"tags" : [ "v1consumer" ],
"summary" : "Consume messages using a simple consumer",
"description" : "",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this intentional? An empty description is strange.

"type" : "string"
}, {
"in" : "body",
"name" : "body",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just want to confirm, is this name by design?

"ConsumeRecord" : {
"type" : "object",
"properties" : {
"value" : {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we add description?

@mmyyrroonn
Copy link
Contributor

@hrasheed-msft Hello. Could you solve the CI error and address the comments?

@hrasheed-msft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@myronfanqiu I have reached out to the dev team that wrote the spec to resolve the issues. I'll update the PR shortly.

resolving reviewer comments
@hrasheed-msft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@myronfanqiu The team has updated the spec. Is there a way to exempt the terms causing the first spellcheck test to fail?

@mmyyrroonn
Copy link
Contributor

@hrasheed-msft
Copy link
Contributor Author

hrasheed-msft commented Nov 27, 2019

Updating with fixes for reviewer comments
@hrasheed-msft
Copy link
Contributor Author

@myronfanqiu @devigned The json file has been updated based on reviewer comments.

Copy link
Contributor

@mmyyrroonn mmyyrroonn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM @devigned Could you confirm whether you have more concerns about this PR or not?

@devigned
Copy link
Member

devigned commented Dec 5, 2019

👍

@mmyyrroonn mmyyrroonn merged commit eb99d31 into Azure:master Dec 5, 2019
@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Dec 5, 2019

azure-sdk-for-go - Release

No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Dec 5, 2019

azure-sdk-for-net - Release

No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Dec 5, 2019

azure-sdk-for-js - Release

No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Dec 5, 2019

azure-sdk-for-python - Release

No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Dec 5, 2019

azure-sdk-for-java - Release

No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

TalluriAnusha pushed a commit to AsrOneSdk/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

APIStewardshipBoard-ReviewRequested This should be reviewed by the Azure API Stewardship team in partnership with the service team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants