Bringing back the accidentally deleted OneDeploy api spec #17397
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, @SatishRanjan 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. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version is adding a path that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/WebApps.json#L3567:5 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| 200/201 Responses of long running operations must have a schema definition for return type. OperationId: 'WebApps_CreateOneDeployOperation', Response code: '200' Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/WebApps.json#L3634 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The response in the GET collection operation 'AppServicePlans_ListVnets' does not match the response definition in the individual GET operation 'AppServicePlans_GetVnetFromServerFarm' . Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/AppServicePlans.json#L884 |
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DeletedWebApps' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/DeletedWebApps.json#L106 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L281 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L334 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L954 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L1014 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L102 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L405 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L712 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L118 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L161 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L206 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L267 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L313 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L375 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L432 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L488 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L558 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L608 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L660 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L718 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L781 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L844 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L901 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L955 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1009 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1066 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1125 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1206 |
|
| Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1267 |
️️✔️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.
️🔄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 @SatishRanjan, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
NewApiVersionRequired reason: |
jvano
approved these changes
Jan 18, 2022
This was referenced Jan 18, 2022
|
Wanted to add some context here. Earlier this month the Web Apps team merged a large PR to create the new 2021-03-01 API version: #16506. In that PR, a developer who is no longer with MSFT accidentally removed a new API from the Swagger: 5086384#diff-4438378087f23dbffcbf5b437bf8a7d82c0f1de13844141adb49093dee6fe32dL3527-L3608. The PR was then merged without this API (OneDeploy). This API (OneDeploy) is net-new, so this addition should be a non-breaking change. |
|
I think @msyyc @qiliao123 @ArcturusZhang for awareness. |
|
Abondning this PR since this branch is already merged to the main, and created a new PR targetting main branch branch as per suggestion from @weidongxu-microsoft above. |
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 are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.
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.