[Communication] - Phone Numbers - Address API View comments #19325
Conversation
minnieliu
requested review from
ankitarorabit,
JianpingChen and
a team
as code owners
ghost
added
the
| * @throws NullPointerException If {@code clientOptions} is {@code null}. | ||
| */ | ||
| public CommunicationIdentityClientBuilder clientOptions(ClientOptions clientOptions) { | ||
| this.clientOptions = Objects.requireNonNull(clientOptions, "'clientOptions' cannot be null."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The clientOptions have applicationId which should get into UserAgent here.
This is an old PR shows how UserAgent should be populated with applicationId
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this. Addressed
|
This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer. What is Check Enforcer?Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass. Why am I getting this message?You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged. What should I do now?If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows: What if I am onboarding a new service?Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment: |
| * @param searchRequest {@link PhoneNumberSearchRequest} specifying the search request | ||
| * until it gets a result from the server | ||
| * @param phoneNumberType {@link PhoneNumberType} The phone number type | ||
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone assignment type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone assignment type | |
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone number assignment type. |
Nit: let's be consistent with full stops at the end.
| * operation is complete. | ||
| * | ||
| * @param countryCode The ISO 3166-2 country code. | ||
| * @param searchRequest The search request | ||
| * @param phoneNumberType {@link PhoneNumberType} The phone number type | ||
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone assignment type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone assignment type | |
| * @param assignmentType {@link PhoneNumberAssignmentType} The phone number assignment type. |
| @@ -95,3 +95,39 @@ directive: | |||
| $["properties"]["assignmentType"].readOnly = true; | |||
| $["properties"]["capabilities"].readOnly = true; | |||
| ``` | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Rename PhoneNumberCapabilities Calling PhoneNumberCapabilityValue to PhoneNumberCapabilityType | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we do this in all languages, or maybe the swagger?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I think it might be easier to update the swagger if we plan to do this in all languages. @DominikMe what do you think?
Update readme.md (Azure#19325)
Addressing some of the comments from API View reviews: