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.

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

Donaliu/20200207 sap monitor #8528

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Mar 24, 2020
Merged

Donaliu/20200207 sap monitor #8528

merged 17 commits into from
Mar 24, 2020

Conversation

PakDLiu
Copy link
Contributor

@PakDLiu PakDLiu commented Feb 26, 2020

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.

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Feb 26, 2020

azure-sdk-for-go - Release

⚠️ warning [Logs] [Expand Details]
  • ⚠️ Generate from 32548ed with merge commit 619796b. SDK Automation 13.0.17.20200320.2
  • ⚠️preview/hanaonazure/mgmt/2017-11-03-preview [Logs
      No file is changed.

    @openapi-sdkautomation
    Copy link

    openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Feb 26, 2020

    azure-sdk-for-java - Release

    ️✔️ succeeded [Logs] [Expand Details]

    @openapi-sdkautomation
    Copy link

    openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Feb 26, 2020

    azure-sdk-for-js - Release

    ️✔️ succeeded [Logs] [Expand Details]

    @openapi-sdkautomation
    Copy link

    openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Feb 26, 2020

    azure-sdk-for-python - Release

    ⚠️ warning [Logs] [Expand Details]
    • ⚠️ Generate from 32548ed with merge commit 619796b. SDK Automation 13.0.17.20200320.2
      Failed to find any diff after autorest so no changed packages was found.

    @openapi-sdkautomation
    Copy link

    openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Feb 26, 2020

    azure-sdk-for-net - Release

    No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    Copy link

    @tniek tniek left a comment

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    Couple of comments, mostly naming

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azuresdkci
    Copy link
    Contributor

    Can one of the admins verify this patch?

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @PakDLiu PakDLiu removed their assignment Mar 10, 2020
    @markcowl markcowl added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review labels Mar 10, 2020
    @markcowl
    Copy link
    Member

    @ravbhatnagar Please answer the remaining question to your feedback

    Added List providerInstance API
    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    "type": {
    "type": "string",
    "description": "The provider instance type."
    },
    Copy link
    Member

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    Why is there no modelling of the properties of the provider instance? This is going to make writing tools to consume this type very difficult, both in SDKs and for customers consuming the API directly

    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    This is by design. the properties field is a JSON string and the schema will be determined by the type field.

    We wanted to make the API flexible. Also, other teams will be implementing their own providers and it will be up to them what their JSON schema will be.

    @markcowl markcowl added Reviewed-ChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee request changes after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Mar 19, 2020
    @markcowl markcowl assigned PakDLiu and unassigned ravbhatnagar and ryansbenson Mar 19, 2020
    @markcowl
    Copy link
    Member

    @PakDLiu One comment, verified that ARM feedback was addressed. Please take a look

    @azure-pipelines
    Copy link

    Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

    @openapi-sdkautomation
    Copy link

    openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Mar 19, 2020

    azure-cli-extensions - Release

    No readme.md specification configuration files were found that are associated with the files modified in this pull request, or swagger_to_sdk section in readme.md is not configured

    @markcowl markcowl added Approved-OkToMerge <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee approve to merge the updates and removed Reviewed-ChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee request changes after review labels Mar 24, 2020
    @markcowl markcowl merged commit 619796b into Azure:master Mar 24, 2020
    00Kai0 pushed a commit to 00Kai0/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2020
    * Added new version 2020-02-07-preview of SapMonitor APIs
    
    * bugs
    
    * Fixed parameter naming
    
    * fixed examples
    
    * fixed more examples
    
    * various fixed
    
    * more fixes
    
    * ran prettier
    
    * renamed monitorProviders to providerInstances
    
    * updated README
    
    * Added 201 and 202 for create and delete provider instances
    
    * ran prettier
    
    * fixed path in readme
    
    * added id field to providerInstances
    
    * Separate SapMonitor and providerInstance APIs
    Added List providerInstance API
    
    * fixed spelling
    
    * updated provider instance payload
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    Approved-OkToMerge <valid label in PR review process>add this label when assignee approve to merge the updates
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    7 participants