-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add missing entities #12354
Add missing entities #12354
Conversation
Hi, @moranraz Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips. Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected] |
Swagger Validation Report
|
Rule | Message |
---|---|
Guid used in model definition 'MailboxEntityProperties' for property 'externalDirectoryObjectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/SecurityInsights.json#L8374 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'MailMessageEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/SecurityInsights.json#L8595 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'SubmissionMailEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/SecurityInsights.json#L8804 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isVolumeAnomaly New: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2019-01-01-preview/SecurityInsights.json#L8458 |
️️✔️
Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️
ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️
SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️
[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️
CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Hi @moranraz, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
Hi, @moranraz your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). cc @leni-msft |
Hi @moranraz, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. |
@moranraz adding properties are potential breaking changes, please follow the Action in above comment to request approval. Also see https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_wiki/wikis/internal.wiki/405/Window-to-Fix-Broken |
Hi @leni-msft, the properties I added are properties that were missing, and their addition is in response to the bugs that I linked above. As you probably know, we were giving a window (until the end of January) to fix all of these bugs that ARM has found in our endpoints without having to release a new version. in the link you attached it says: There have been multiple PRs from my team with the same changes that were approved in the past week. Thanks! |
@moranraz could you attach the workItem link in the PR comment? |
this PR fixes the following issues: |
@moranraz Sorry, I meant the Intake ticket to request breaking changes. If not created yet, you need follow the breaking change policy to request approval. |
There is no intake ticket, and as far as we know there's no need for one. Like I said, the properties I added are properties that were missing, and their addition is in response to the bugs that I linked above. |
* add missing entities * set modelAsString to true * remove z * entity fixes * add words to be ignored in spell check
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
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.
Please ensure you've reviewed following guidelines including ARM resource provider contract and REST guidelines. Estimated time (4 hours). This is required before you can request review from ARM API Review board.
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.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.