New API version to Microsoft.Security 2021-11-01 #18045
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, @nitsi 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 parameters:ascLocation,resourceGroupName should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L161 |
|
The parameters:ascLocation,alertName,resourceGroupName should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L248 |
|
The parameters:ascLocation,alertName,resourceGroupName should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L410 |
|
The parameters:ascLocation,alertName,resourceGroupName should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L452 |
|
The parameters:ascLocation,alertName,resourceGroupName should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L494 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L805 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L855 |
|
Missing identifier id in array item property Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L885 |
| Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L998 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isIncident Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L893 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Update security alert state on a subscription from a security data location Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L333 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Update security alert state on a subscription from a security data location Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L372 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Update security alert state on a resource group from a security data location Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L453 |
|
| Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Update security alert state on a resource group from a security data location Location: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L495 |
️❌Avocado: 6 Errors, 1 Warnings failed [Detail]
️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️❌Cross-Version Breaking Changes: 2 Errors, 40 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json compared with base:stable/2021-01-01/alerts.json
- current:stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json compared with base:preview/2015-06-01-preview/alerts.json
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version adds a response code '204'. New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L562:11 |
|
The new version has a different 'x-ms-longrunning-operation' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-11-01/alerts.json#L536:7 Old: Microsoft.Security/stable/2021-01-01/alerts.json#L536:7 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with latest preview version:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail]
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"readme":"security/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-composite-v3", "details":"Error: Plugin prechecker reported failure." |
️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @nitsi your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @nitsi, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced Mar 1, 2022
|
Hello @ruowan, Is there anything else you need from me? |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
|
You are adding new apis, your PR need arm review |
|
@nitsi - A couple of things before your PR is ready for ARM review:
[ ] 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.
[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki. Note: if you don't want to use OpenAPIHub to set up your new API version PR, please create it manually by copying the current API version files [unmodified] to the new API version folder and commit that as your first commit of the PR. Apply other changes in subsequent commits. |
mentat9
added
the
ARMChangesRequested
…-01 to version 2021-11-01
pick 5459ef18a7 New API version to Microsoft.Security pick c8462f9c60 [Microsoft.Security alerts] fix examples/Alerts/SimulateAlerts_example.json pick b5f4550d6b [Microsoft.Security alerts] add missing API to readme.md
|
@ruowan it seems there is a problem with the Avocado check:
|
ruowan
approved these changes
Mar 16, 2022
|
Thanks for feedback. I add approvedAvocado label. |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
yibirnba
approved these changes
Mar 16, 2022
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
@ruowan can we marge? |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
This was referenced Mar 22, 2022
FredericHeem
pushed a commit
to grucloud/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2022
* Adds base for updating Microsoft.Security from version stable/2021-01-01 to version 2021-11-01 * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * New API version to Microsoft.Security pick 5459ef18a7 New API version to Microsoft.Security pick c8462f9c60 [Microsoft.Security alerts] fix examples/Alerts/SimulateAlerts_example.json pick b5f4550d6b [Microsoft.Security alerts] add missing API to readme.md * [Microsoft.Security alerts] fix examples/Alerts/SimulateAlerts_example.json * [Microsoft.Security alerts] add missing API to readme.md * Fix readme.md file after rebase * Removing "x-ms-long-running-operation" header * Setting target package back to package-composite-v3 * Updating securityContacts.json to the latest version * Reverting securityContacts.json to equal main, should be updated by the relevant team Co-authored-by: Nitsan Bracha <[email protected]>
Merged
12 tasks
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:
Tomarrow.
As soon as ARM deploy the manifest changes
Contribution checklist:
Validation tool https://github.blog/changelog/2022-02-22-sunset-notice-deprecated-teams-api-endpoints/
Got an approval for the Breaking Change from Jeffrey Richter on the weekly office hours, I'll ask him to sign it.
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.