Communication Services - Rooms APIspecification

[elavarasidc]

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:

1. What's the purpose of the update?
   • new service onboarding
   • [] new API version
   • update existing version for new feature
   • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
   • Other, please clarify
2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month. 06/30/2022
3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month. 06/07/2022
4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
   • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
   • SDK of Python
   • SDK of Java
   • SDK of Js
   • SDK of Go
   • PowerShell
   • CLI
   • Terraform
   • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

• I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
• I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
• Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and errors have all been fixed in this PR. How to fix?

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

• Change to data plane APIs
• Adding new properties
• All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

• Check this box if any of the following appy to the PR so that the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.

  • Adding a new service
  • Adding new API(s)
  • Adding a new API version
    -[x] 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.

• Removing API(s) in a stable version
• Removing properties in a stable version
• Removing API version(s) in a stable version
• Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
• Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi, @elavarasidc Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.

PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.

For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator

If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected]

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi, @elavarasidc your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]).

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️⌛CredScan pending [Detail]

️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for LintDiff.

compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0)	new version	base version
package-rooms-2022-02-01-preview	package-rooms-2022-02-01-preview(a2e60e1)	default(main)

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️⌛PoliCheck pending [Detail]

️⚠️SDK Track2 Validation: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/a2e60e148c57247a78116caa3c20ab9c119c15c7/specification/communication/data-plane/Rooms/readme.md#tag-package-rooms-2022-02-01-preview">communication/data-plane/Rooms/readme.md#package-rooms-2022-02-01-preview

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message
⚠️ UnkownSecurityScheme	"readme":"communication/data-plane/Rooms/readme.md", "tag":"package-rooms-2022-02-01-preview", "details":"Security scheme Authorization is unknown and will not be processed. Only supported types are AADToken, AzureKey, Anonymous"

️️✔️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).

️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for CadlValidation.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

[mentat9]

Dataplane APIs don't need ARM review: removing incorrect labels.

[JeffreyRichter]

• POST /rooms
  • We prefer PUT or PATCH /rooms/{roomId} to POST
• Do not put any non-2xx status codes in the swagger. Just have a default and refer to the standard Azure error response type.
• POST /rooms/{roomId}/participants/:add
  • No / before the colon; same for update & remove
  • I wonder if you could replace the 3 POST add/update/remove operations with a single PATCH /rooms/{roomId}/participants or even just using the PATCH /rooms/{roomId} you already have
• If GET /rooms/{roomId} already returns the participants, why do you need GET /rooms/{roomId}/participants at all?

[weidongxu-microsoft]

A few comments after quick read.

I assume we have a meeting this week?

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @elavarasidc, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff. If you have any questions, please post your questions in this channel https://aka.ms/swaggersupport.

Task	How to fix	Priority
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback.

[elavarasidc]

I assume we have a meeting this week?

We are meeting next week on the 16th June at 4PM PST
[Communication - Rooms] REST API Review

[elavarasidc]

• POST /rooms
  We prefer PUT or PATCH /rooms/{roomId} to POST
  [Response] The create room end point /rooms is a POST end point as, at the platform level we do not support customer supplied identifier. RoomID generation is controlled by IC3.
  [Response] The update room end point /rooms/{roomId} is a PATCH end point.

• Do not put any non-2xx status codes in the swagger. Just have a default and refer to the standard Azure error response type.
  [Response] Addressed.

• POST /rooms/{roomId}/participants/:add
  No / before the colon; same for update & remove
  [Response] Addressed for add, update and remove participants end point

• I wonder if you could replace the 3 POST add/update/remove operations with a single PATCH /rooms/{roomId}/participants or even just using the PATCH /rooms/{roomId} you already have
  [Response]
  The proposal is to move away from a comprehensive 'update' API using JSON merge patch, into discrete APIs for addition and removal of participants:
  (1) Provide a consistent experience with similar APIs in other ACS SDKs to handle participants (example Chat Add Chat Participants - REST API (Azure Communication) | Microsoft Docs)
  (2) The private preview version of Rooms service API made use of the JSON merge patch to update the Participants in a Room. However, we have found technical issues when expanding the functionality into various language SDKs. Open issue: Board Review: Support for JSON Merge Patch · Issue #3520 · Azure/azure-sdk (github.com) .
  Proposed changes: ACS Rooms - Technical solution to Add Remove and Update participants.docx
  Swagger UI (microsoft.com)

• If GET /rooms/{roomId} already returns the participants, why do you need GET /rooms/{roomId}/participants at all?
  [Response]
  Expecting developers to use the GET participants end point, more frequent, before removing / updating participants.
  Also, other communication services such as chat has end point to list participants. Having Get participants end point will give us a similar developer experience across ACS services.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment.

[elavarasidc]

Please uncommit the "package-lock.json", the PR should not modify it.

Also there seems no action on 2 topics:

1. single id property vs. CommunicationIdentifier object
2. PUT vs. POST

@weidongxu-microsoft, thanks for your comment.

1. PUT vs POST -The review comment is to be addressed before GA. [added note]
2. id property vs communicationidentifier -This was more of a discussion during review meeting around raw id as it relates to communicationIdentifier. The model is owned by communication common, and board mentioned to have further discussion with ACS architecture team [no action for rooms spec specifically]
3. Security property has been added.
4. package-lock.json removed

[weidongxu-microsoft]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Failure on ApiDocPreview appears not related to the PR.

As this is not a required CI, it will not block PR merge.

Error message

 error: unable to create file specification/compute/resource-manager/Microsoft.Compute/ComputeRP/stable/2022-03-01/ComputeRP/examples/virtualMachineExamples/VirtualMachine_Create_WindowsVmWithPatchSettingModeOfAutomaticByPlatformAndEnableHotPatchingTrue.json: Filename too long error: unable to create file specification/compute/resource-manager/Microsoft.Compute/ComputeRP/stable/2022-03-01/ComputeRP/examples/virtualMachineScaleSetExamples/VirtualMachineScaleSets_ForceRecoveryServiceFabricPlatformUpdateDomainWalk_MaximumSet_Gen.json: Filename too long error: unable to create file specification/compute/resource-manager/Microsoft.Compute/ComputeRP/stable/2022-03-01/ComputeRP/examples/virtualMachineScaleSetExamples/VirtualMachineScaleSets_ForceRecoveryServiceFabricPlatformUpdateDomainWalk_MinimumSet_Gen.json: Filename too long

[elavarasidc]

Team, please help merge this PR.

[ruowan]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).