Swagger change for CustomIpPrefix. Adding four new attributes. #13373
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, @gitlwh 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. vsswagger@microsoft.com |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
Additional properties not allowed: children Url: Microsoft.Network/stable/2021-01-01/customIpPrefix.json#L360 JsonUrl: stable/2021-01-01/examples/CustomIpPrefixList.json |
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.7)
- original: stable/2020-11-01/customIpPrefix.json <---> new: stable/2021-01-01/customIpPrefix.json
️⚠️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation: 696 Warnings warning [Detail]
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayOnDemandProbe' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayBackendHealthOnDemand' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayBackendHealth' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayBackendHealthPool' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayBackendHealthHttpSettings' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayBackendHealthServer' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewaySku' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewaySslPolicy' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayClientAuthConfiguration' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
|
| "readme":"network/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2021-01", "details":"The schema 'ApplicationGatewayIPConfigurationPropertiesFormat' with an undefined type and decalared properties is a bit ambigious. This has been auto-corrected to 'type:object'" |
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
ghost
added
the
|
Hi @gitlwh, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
This was referenced Mar 10, 2021
[AutoPR Microsoft.Azure.Management.Network] change swagger
AzureSDKAutomation/azure-sdk-for-net#3481
Draft
kairu-ms
reviewed
Mar 11, 2021
Comment on lines
366
to
377
| "SignedMessage": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "Signed message for WAN validation." | ||
| }, | ||
| "AuthorizationMessage": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "Authorization message for WAN validation." | ||
| }, | ||
| "CustomIpPrefixParent": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/definitions/CustomIpPrefix", | ||
| "description": "The Parent CustomIpPrefix for IPv6 /64 CustomIpPrefix." | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add examples for these property.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi I fixed the error. But it seems there is a validation failure not related to my code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi I fixed the error. But it seems there is a validation failure not related to my code.
Ignore it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All the example are response message. We don't want AuthorizationMessage and SignedMessage to be shown in the response message. That's why we don't add them in the example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All the example are response message. We don't want AuthorizationMessage and SignedMessage to be shown in the response message. That's why we don't add them in the example.
If AuthorizationMessage and SignedMessage are used in request body, you should add them in examples too. We are using tools to generate tests based on examples. If them are missed, our tests will not cover these properties.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just updated. For CustomIpPrefixParent, only ipv6 /64 has this property. So some example resource doesn't have it.
openapi-workflow-bot
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
|
Hi, @gitlwh your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com). cc @kairu-ms |
|
Please update PR title to a more meaningful one. |
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
and removed
CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
CI-BreakingChange-Python-Track2
labels
gitlwh
changed the title
done |
|
This version is abondoned by NRP since some regression happened. Would work on network-february-release. |
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
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
April
March
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from 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.