Add 202 response to LinkedServices #14227
Merged
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
|
Hi, @orargaman 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 |
|---|---|
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/LinkedServices.json#L80:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/LinkedServices.json#L137:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-10-01/Clusters.json#L215:11 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.9.2 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.6 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.9.2 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.6 )
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Resource type naming must follow camel case. Path: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourcegroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/intelligencePacks/{intelligencePackName}/Disable' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/IntelligencePacks.json#L37 |
|
Resource type naming must follow camel case. Path: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourcegroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/{workspaceName}/intelligencePacks/{intelligencePackName}/Enable' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/IntelligencePacks.json#L78 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/DataSources.json#L79 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/DataSources.json#L126 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/DataSources.json#L167 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/DataSources.json#L217 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/IntelligencePacks.json#L71 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/IntelligencePacks.json#L112 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/IntelligencePacks.json#L146 |
|
The response is defined but without a default error response implementation.Consider adding it.' Location: Microsoft.OperationalInsights/stable/2020-08-01/LinkedServices.json#L79 |
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/operationalinsights/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/operationalinsights/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2020-10 |
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️🔄[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation inProgress [Detail]
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
|
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @orargaman, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @orargaman, 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. |
This was referenced May 4, 2021
|
Current Swagger does not always match the response in the API. Fixing this so customers using PS won't get an error due to mismatch in response.. |
kairu-ms
approved these changes
May 6, 2021
|
This PR needs Breaking Change Review. |
|
@orargaman Please don't use master branch directly. You should create a feature branch. |
|
added breaking change request: @kairu-ms , @orargaman |
kairu-ms
approved these changes
May 7, 2021
|
@kairu-ms can we merge this? |
@JeffreyRichter Can you review the breaking change. Thanks. |
|
It's a problem to have an operation return both 200 AND 202 because the customer MUST write their code as if a 202 is always returned because it could be. So, there is no value to returning a 200 in this case. |
|
@JeffreyRichter ,@orargaman |
|
Hi @orargaman, is this PR fixing S360 issue? @JeffreyRichter can this PR be approve? |
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2021
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
|
@akning-ms do you mind approving and merging this? |
This was referenced Jun 21, 2021
asager
pushed a commit
to asager/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2021
* Add 202 response to LinkedServices * Add example * Update Delete api as well * Fix example + Add to cluster delete Co-authored-by: Or Argaman <[email protected]>
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
* Add 202 response to LinkedServices * Add example * Update Delete api as well * Fix example + Add to cluster delete Co-authored-by: Or Argaman <[email protected]>
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.
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 Breaking Change 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.