Add IoT data connector #17086
Merged
Add IoT data connector #17086
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, @ShaniFelig 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] |
|
[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. |
|
Hi, @ShaniFelig your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| Since operation 'Entities_Queries' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L291 |
|
| Since operation 'Entities_GetInsights' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L339 |
|
| Since operation 'ThreatIntelligenceIndicator_QueryIndicators' response has model definition 'x-ms-pageable', it should be of the form '_list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json#L296 |
|
| 'GET' operation 'Entities_Queries' should use method name 'Get' or Method name start with 'List'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L291 |
|
| 'PUT' operation 'ProductSettings_Update' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Settings.json#L176 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L1030 |
|
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json#L1048 |
|
| The enum types should have x-ms-enum type extension set with appropriate options. Property name: kind Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L1203 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'Entities_Queries' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L281 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'SentinelOnboardingStates_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/OnboardingStates.json#L178 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'ProductSettings_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Settings.json#L38 |
|
| Based on the response model schema, operation 'ThreatIntelligenceIndicatorMetrics_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/ThreatIntelligence.json#L334 |
|
| Sku Model definition 'Sku' is not valid. A Sku model must have 'name' property. It can also have 'tier', 'size', 'family', 'capacity' as optional properties. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Settings.json#L388 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'BookmarkModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Bookmark' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L291 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'SourceControlModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'SourceControl' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/SourceControls.json#L48 |
|
| OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DataConnectorsCheckRequirementsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'DataConnectorsCheckRequirements' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/dataConnectors.json#L431 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'gettimeline' in:'EntitiesGetTimeline_list'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Entities.json#L243 |
|
| OperationId should contain the verb: 'dataconnectorscheckrequirements' in:'DataConnectorsCheckRequirements_Post'. Consider updating the operationId Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/dataConnectors.json#L431 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Bookmark', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/RelationTypes.json#L30 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Entity', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/RelationTypes.json#L30 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'comments' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Incidents.json#L1076 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/RelationTypes.json#L30 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'watchlistItems' with immediate parent 'Watchlist', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Watchlists.json#L596 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IncidentOwnerInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/IncidentTypes.json#L179 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'ClientInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: resource-manager/common/2.0/types.json#L35 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'BookmarkExpandParameters' for property 'expansionId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/preview/2021-10-01-preview/Bookmarks.json#L536 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'UserInfo' for property 'objectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: resource-manager/common/2.0/types.json#L60 |
|
| 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. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2294 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'SecurityGroupEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2255 |
|
| 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. Location: preview/2021-10-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1352 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.1)
- current:preview/2021-10-01-preview/dataConnectors.json compared with base:preview/2021-09-01-preview/dataConnectors.json
️🔄SDK Track2 Validation inProgress [Detail]
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @ShaniFelig.
|
mentat9
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
Hi @mentat9 . The previous version was copied for first commit and then the version was updated. This was done automatically by the OpenAPI Hub tool when we opened the dev branch Shani merges changes to. You may see the diffs between the previous version and Shani's additions in this PR. |
|
Hi @zhenglaizhang , There seems to be an issue with the CI that is causing an SDK validation to fail. This also caused automatic additions of CI related tags to the PR. Is this issue being taken care of? |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Well, it looks fine but it's a link to an image, not a PR. :) I can't review this: I need to be able to see the new API version as changes diffed against the previous API version. Since this PR is to a dev/aggregation branch, it doesn't actually require ARM review yet (label notwithstanding). It sounds like it makes more sense to review the new API version in one PR when it moves from the dev branch to main. I'll remove the ARM review label. Otherwise, LMK if you want to try a different approach. |
mentat9
removed
WaitForARMFeedback
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Following this up in separate email thread. Reviewing now to unblock this PR. |
mentat9
added
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Signed off from ARM side. |
Hi @zhenglaizhang , Any update on this? Is there something I need to do? |
Confirmed that we can safely ignore the SDK Track2 Validation as SDK gens are good. |
zhenglaizhang
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
Thanks @zhenglaizhang . Can you please merge the PR? |
zhenglaizhang
approved these changes
Dec 22, 2021
ruowan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2022
leni-msft
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2022
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.SecurityInsights from version preview/2021-09-01-preview to version 2021-10-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Add IoT data connector (#17086) * add Iot data connector * fix kind in getIotById * add deleted files * add missing newlines * fix newlines * Revert "Add IoT data connector (#17086)" (#17170) This reverts commit a11dd79. * Adding providerIncidentUrl & techniques to IncidentAdditionalData (#17173) * Adding providerIncidentUrl to Incident * Adding techniques to incident * Dev sentinel 2021 10 01 preview (#17314) * Bookmarks 2021-10-01-preview * prettier * definitions * rename Co-authored-by: Igal Shapira <[email protected]> * Data connectors 2021 10 01 preview office connectors added (#17193) * Project and PowerBI specs added. * Space removed * File with a wrong name removed * More changer added * Example files with inconsistent naming removed * dataConnectors json updated * Ref fixed * Prettier applied Co-authored-by: Ido Klotz <[email protected]> * AutomationRules preview 2021_10_01 (#17325) * h * first * examples * prettier * path * fixes * prettier * examples * Z * Z * responses * fix * fixes * fix * prettier * PR Fixes * PR Fixes * PR Fixes * fix * fix * fix * fix * Last * PR Fixes * Last * tryFix * tryFix * incidentTypes * fix Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <[email protected]> * Add MITRE support to alert rules models (#17198) * Update alert rules models with tactics and techniques * Add attack tactics new enum values * Update alert rules models examples * Fix techniques type * Update files with prettier * Insert validations fixes * Fix validations * Fixes in alert rules models * Fix alert rules models and examples * adding changes to alert rules json * Revert "adding changes to alert rules json" This reverts commit 603490e. * Adding fusion v2 ui api documentation * some fixes * adding prettier fixes * removing unwanted property * updating the readonly properties Co-authored-by: Lilyan Cohen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Vishal Kumar <[email protected]> * ErrorResponse changed to CloudError (#17477) Co-authored-by: Ido Klotz <[email protected]> * Done (#17488) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <[email protected]> * Adding tenantId (#17533) Co-authored-by: Ido Klotz <[email protected]> * Done (#17556) Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <[email protected]> * Fix LindDiff and SemanticValidation (#17584) Co-authored-by: ShaniFelig <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: roherzbe <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Igal <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Igal Shapira <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ido Klotz <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ido Klotz <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: royrein <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Roy Reinhorn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lilyanc02 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Lilyan Cohen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Vishal Kumar <[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
Add a changelog entry for 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
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits.
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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the 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.