[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.Authorization to add version preview/2022-05-01-preview #23941
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, @veseshad92 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
|
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| RoleManagementPolicy.json | 2020-10-01-preview(e6796b2) | 2020-10-01-preview(main) |
| authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json | 2022-04-01(e6796b2) | 2022-04-01(main) |
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version has a different 'pattern' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Authorization/stable/2022-04-01/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 Old: Microsoft.Authorization/stable/2022-04-01/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 |
️❌Breaking Change(Cross-Version): 1 Errors, 1 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json | 2022-05-01-preview(e6796b2) | 2022-04-01(main) |
| authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json | 2022-05-01-preview(e6796b2) | 2018-01-01-preview(main) |
| common-types.json | 2022-05-01-preview(e6796b2) | 2022-04-01(main) |
| common-types.json | 2022-05-01-preview(e6796b2) | 2020-10-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version has a different 'pattern' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2022-05-01-preview/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 Old: Microsoft.Authorization/stable/2022-04-01/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version has a different 'pattern' value than the previous one. New: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2022-05-01-preview/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 Old: Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2018-01-01-preview/authorization-RoleDefinitionsCalls.json#L109:11 |
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.3) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2022-04-01 | package-2022-04-01(e6796b2) | package-2022-04-01(main) |
| package-2020-10-01-preview | package-2020-10-01-preview(e6796b2) | package-2020-10-01-preview(main) |
| package-2022-05-01-preview | package-2022-05-01-preview(e6796b2) | default(main) |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/authorization/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/authorization/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2022-05-01-preview |
️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️❌~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
"\nfatal error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/authorization/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2020-10-01-preview/scenarios/basic.yaml', "errno":-2, "code":"ENOENT", "syscall":"open", "path":"/mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/authorization/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/preview/2020-10-01-preview/scenarios/basic.yaml"\n" |
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passed for PoliCheck.
️️✔️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.
️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Generated ApiView
|
ghost
added
the
This was referenced May 11, 2023
AzureRestAPISpecReview
added
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
|
Hi @veseshad92, 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. |
|
Hi @veseshad92, one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR. Please follow the Swagger-Suppression-Process to get approval. |
AzureRestAPISpecReview
removed
the
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
This reverts commit 2f81f5d.
|
@JeffreyRichter apologies I was looking at Swagger Breaking Change. The difference here is that the |
|
So that is a breaking change. What will happen to customers that were using /{roleId}?disambiguation_dummy when they adopt the new api-version? |
|
We have 0.07% of total GET role definition calls that are using this pattern than the standard get by ID pattern. I'm adding this API to the preview version so that it is consistent with the GA version. |
|
I don't understand. Today you have the /{roleId}?disambiguation_dummy and some customers might be using it. |
|
@JeffreyRichter I am acking this is a breaking change and adding the missing api back. Sry if it's not clear from my prev comment. |
|
Hi @JeffreyRichter the problem is resolved! Can I have a review for the swagger breakingchange? |
JeffreyRichter
added
the
Approved-BreakingChange
|
@keryul Um...if you don't mind me asking, do all of these issues need to be reviewed? And each by a different person? So far this PR has been changed hands by about 5 or 6 reviewers over a month already. Why is this process so cumbersome? Is there any room for optimization? 😊 Why weren't these reviews mentioned when I first took over this PR ~2 weeks ago? |
yes, every error check has its owner, and they should be reviewed at the end of review to prevent other commits from affecting SDK breaking change checks |
raych1
added
the
Approved-SdkBreakingChange-Go
ankhyk
added
the
Approved-OkToMerge
raych1
approved these changes
Jun 21, 2023
raych1
deleted the
veseshad92-authorization-Microsoft.Authorization-2022-05-01-preview
branch
This was referenced Jun 21, 2023
harryli0108
pushed a commit
to harryli0108/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 28, 2023
…sion preview/2022-05-01-preview (Azure#23941) * Adds base for updating Microsoft.Authorization from version stable/2022-04-01 to version 2022-05-01-preview * Updates readme * Updates API version in new specs and examples * Update swagger Docs for Roledefintiion condition in payload * delete unwanted example files * fix errors * typo * more fixes * scope fix * roledef fix * fixing warnings * Revert "fixing warnings" This reverts commit 2f81f5d. * revert scope base * supress warnings with reason * remove x-ms path * supresess * fixing get by id as there nothing called get by name * fix * Scope * v2 to v4 * scope param * scope param * typo * api version * Revert "api version" This reverts commit 7d8e791. * update correct package version * fix warnings * added missing access review file * removing 200 response code * pretty fix * fix errors * update azure-sdk-for-go readme * fix errors * u4 * u5 * u5 * u6 * u7 * u8 * u9 * u10 * u11 --------- Co-authored-by: Ryan Ren <[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.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
ARM API Information (Control Plane)
Azure 1st Party Service can try out the Shift Left experience to initiate API design review from ADO code repo. If you are interested, may request engineering support by filling in with the form https://aka.ms/ShiftLeftSupportForm.
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):
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: Already approved with aRM.
Check this box if any of the following apply 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.
-[ ] 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. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For 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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.
Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.
NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)
Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.