Inference Endpoint and Deployment resources #10193
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[Staging] Swagger Validation Report
️✔️ |
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"role":"Lint Diff", "new":"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/1fb4fe90f3bd6e8629a8ada524ec543fa376c335/specification/machinelearningservices/resource-manager/readme.md", "old":"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/machinelearningservices/resource-manager/readme.md" |
️️✔️Avocado [Detail]
️✔️Validation passes for Avocado.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-go
|
Azure CLI Extension Generation
|
azure-sdk-for-java
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
|
Trenton Generation
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
|
azure-sdk-for-js
|
azure-sdk-for-python
- Breaking Change detected in SDK
|
fullmetalcloud
commented
Jul 17, 2020
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.MachineLearningServices/workspaces/{workspaceName}/endpoints/{endpointName}/deployments/{deploymentName}/skus": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reminder comment: Can you add a comment as to why this is required - based on the autoscale email thread? - Rakesh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes it is required for azmon autoscale integration
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes this is from the previous PR. I will add the "why" in the description.
azure-sdk-for-net
|
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
…ghts (weight distribution across deployments) to Endpoint, added PATCH for Endpoint and Deployment
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
azure-sdk-for-python-track2
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
|
…esponse for resource since these are resources, added validate call to validate endpoint name, added deployment properties code assets and environments
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
…r vnet ref, deleted POST for endpoint and deployment as convention uses PUT for creation
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| "description": "The payload that is used to update the Inference Deployment.", | ||
| "required": true, | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/InferenceDeploymentUpdateParameter" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this a standard naming scheme "xxxUpdateParameter".. seems odd to be called a parameter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you look through the file, I followed the convention of "type" + UpdateParameters, i.e. ClusterUpdateParameters, QuotaUpdateParameters, WorkspacePropertiesUpdateParameters, and WorkspaceUpdateParameters.
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| @@ -2537,6 +3196,7 @@ | |||
| "type": "string" | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| // RANDOM QUESTION: WHY IS THIS HERE??? | |||
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| @@ -3629,6 +4289,15 @@ | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| "Sku": { | |||
| // CORRECTION???: Docs show sku def as | |||
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| }, | ||
| "discriminator": "computeType" | ||
| }, | ||
| "PaginatedServiceList": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not define this. I dont know why this was an addition here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Down below, it assumes that I changed the PaginatedServiceList line for PaginatedInferenceDeploymentsList
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
...er/Microsoft.MachineLearningServices/preview/2020-05-01-preview/machineLearningServices.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| "readOnly": true | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-discriminator-value": "InferenceEndpoint" |
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| "readOnly": true, | ||
| "description": "The current provisioning state of the Inference Deployment resource." | ||
| }, | ||
| "error": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the errorMessage when state is Failed? Should we call it statusMessage or failureMessage? is there a comparable we can reference to decide?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was a property left over from copying service. Compute has ProvisioningError that holds the error and AmlCompute keeps an array of error encountered for compute nodes during node setup. We can keep this property for failed endpoints.
rakelkar
reviewed
Jul 22, 2020
| }, | ||
| "InferenceEndpointUpdateParameter": { | ||
| "description": "The parameters for updating an inference endpoint.", | ||
| "properties": { } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this TODO? can add a TODO comment if so?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left it for conversation and any changes but there is nothing mutable in Endpoint, so we can get rid of PATCH for Endpoint and this object then.
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
While adding new version the recommendation is to copy the existing version into new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes for easy review. Please create new branch with this recommendation for faster review. |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Thanks for the recommendation. Which existing version should I copy? Latest stable or latest preview? |
Also it seems that the errors in the automated tests are not changes I made, but in machineLearningServices.json that was already checked in. |
|
moved changes to new PR as instructed. #10420 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged with urgency, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
Breaking Change Review Checklist
If there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.