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

Fix swagger correctness #4

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 28, 2021
Merged

Fix swagger correctness #4

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 28, 2021

Conversation

udmalik
Copy link
Owner

@udmalik udmalik commented Jul 27, 2021 •
edited
Loading

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.

  1. What's the purpose of the update?
    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When you are targeting to deploy new service/feature to public regions? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
  3. When you expect to publish swagger? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
  4. If it's an update to existing version, please select SDKs of specific language and CLIs that require refresh after swagger is published.
    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No, no need to refresh for updates in this PR

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.

    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
    • Ensure to copy the existing version into new directory structure for first commit (including refactoring) and then push new changes including version updates in separate commits. This is required to review the changes efficiently.
    • Adding a new service

  • 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.

  • Removing API(s) in stable version
  • Removing properties in stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in stable version
  • Updating API in stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

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.

wilcobmsft
wilcobmsft reviewed Jul 28, 2021
View reviewed changes
specification/billing/resource-manager/Microsoft.Billing/stable/2020-05-01/billing.json Outdated
"additionalProperties": {
"type": "string"
},
"maxItems": 1000
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Any reason you need to allow this many? ARM supports just 15 per resource...

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i was trying to be consistent with labels. i know API itself only supports max 50.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Made it to 50, that's what API supports as well.

wilcobmsft
wilcobmsft reviewed Jul 28, 2021
View reviewed changes
specification/billing/resource-manager/Microsoft.Billing/stable/2020-05-01/billing.json Outdated
@@ -5679,6 +5693,14 @@
"description": "The sku description of the Azure plan for the subscription.",
"type": "string",
"readOnly": true
},
"suspensionReasons": {
"description": "The suspension reason for a subscription. Applies only to legacy subscriptions",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of "legacy subscriptions", maybe say "Applies only to subscriptions in Microsoft Online Services Program (MOSP) billing accounts." or something like that.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed.

wilcobmsft
wilcobmsft reviewed Jul 28, 2021
View reviewed changes
specification/billing/resource-manager/Microsoft.Billing/stable/2020-05-01/billing.json
@@ -4762,7 +4762,7 @@
"additionalProperties": {
"type": "string"
},
"maxItems": 1000
"maxItems": 50
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we have validation on key/value lengths as well, like ARM does? We need to make sure that we scale properly when someone creates the largest possible invoice section entities, many times.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes we have validation on key/value lengths as well.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should describe the validation in the description of this property so people can look this up

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

added

wilcobmsft
wilcobmsft reviewed Jul 28, 2021
View reviewed changes
specification/billing/resource-manager/Microsoft.Billing/stable/2020-05-01/billing.json
@@ -4782,6 +4782,14 @@
"type": "string",
"readOnly": true
},
"tags": {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is the difference between tags and labels?

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

They are the same. Plan was to eliminate one, but now both are being returned and this is causing s360 to flag this. So to fix this issue in GA, i am adding tags also to the swagger spec.

@udmalik udmalik merged commit d72e671 into master Jul 28, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@wilcobmsft wilcobmsft wilcobmsft approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@udmalik @wilcobmsft