Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Compute] Add patch spec for SharedImageGallery #7771

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 18, 2019
Merged

[Compute] Add patch spec for SharedImageGallery #7771

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 18, 2019

Conversation

jerryc3
Copy link
Contributor

@jerryc3 jerryc3 commented Nov 12, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Latest improvements:

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

  • I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
  • The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
  • adding/removing APIs.
  • adding/removing properties.
  • adding/removing API-version.
  • adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
    Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

@jerryc3 jerryc3 requested a review from hyonholee as a code owner November 12, 2019 23:52
@azuresdkci azuresdkci requested a review from lirenhe November 12, 2019 23:53
@AutorestCI AutorestCI mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2019
Merged
@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Nov 12, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#8691

@AutorestCI AutorestCI mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2019
Merged
@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Nov 12, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#6375

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@jerryc3
Copy link
Contributor Author

jerryc3 commented Nov 13, 2019

The potential new ARM errors are all expected given that

  1. patch resource-> id and type are not required
  2. examples would be redundant since PUT already contains examples. It would be harder to maintain if we added examples for PATCH in addition to PUT.

@lirenhe
Copy link
Member

lirenhe commented Nov 13, 2019

@jerryc3, could you take a look at the errors in LintDiff check? Let me know if you have any questions.

@jerryc3
Copy link
Contributor Author

jerryc3 commented Nov 13, 2019

@jerryc3, could you take a look at the errors in LintDiff check? Let me know if you have any questions.

HI Renhe (@lirenhe), I looked at the errors in LintDiff and I believe they are expected.

  1. patch resource-> id and type should not be required for a Patch. A user should be able to pass just tags in and update the resource.
  2. examples would be redundant since PUT already contains examples. It would be harder to maintain if we added examples for PATCH in addition to PUT since those examples would be duplicated.

(I followed how compute.json is defining Patch)

@lirenhe
Copy link
Member

lirenhe commented Nov 14, 2019

@jerryc3, could you take a look at the errors in LintDiff check? Let me know if you have any questions.

HI Renhe (@lirenhe), I looked at the errors in LintDiff and I believe they are expected.

patch resource-> id and type should not be required for a Patch. A user should be able to pass just tags in and update the resource.
examples would be redundant since PUT already contains examples. It would be harder to maintain if we added examples for PATCH in addition to PUT since those examples would be duplicated.

(I followed how compute.json is defining Patch)

Do check: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/openapi-authoring-automated-guidelines.md#r2020
Please note, id & type are readonly properties, user does not need to provide those values.

The example should be a good start point for user to understand how to use the your API and it would be part of the document. So please provide the examples.

@lirenhe lirenhe added the WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required label Nov 14, 2019
@jerryc3
Copy link
Contributor Author

jerryc3 commented Nov 14, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@koralski FYI, added Patch for GalleryApp(Version) as well

@ravbhatnagar
Copy link
Contributor

signing off from ARM side.

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Nov 16, 2019
@lirenhe lirenhe merged commit b617dd8 into Azure:master Nov 18, 2019
TalluriAnusha pushed a commit to AsrOneSdk/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2019
@jerryc3 @AnuTalluri
[Compute] Add patch spec for SharedImageGallery (Azure#7771)
c799609 
* add patch to gallery spec

* change descriptions to updated

* updateresource

* Added example and id/type to UpdateResource

* add name

* remove location in examples

* make gallery json pretty
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lirenhe lirenhe lirenhe approved these changes

@hyonholee hyonholee Awaiting requested review from hyonholee

Assignees

@lirenhe lirenhe

Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@jerryc3 @AutorestCI @azuresdkci @lirenhe @ravbhatnagar