Azure
Added new preview version for container instances
Creating a new preview api version with a new property "identityAcls" and related classes for azure container instance.
Next Steps to Merge
✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.![openapi-pipeline-app[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/65541?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Generated ApiView
| Language | Package Name | ApiView Link |
|---|---|---|
| Go | sdk/resourcemanager/containerinstance/armcontainerinstance | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/94480d0264ec4820b781f6275cf6a7a8?revisionId=e66278204ef041f889108b3086fb3234 |
| JavaScript | @azure/arm-containerinstance | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/ad27d08d33da42e195cb6b43c7dc4b68?revisionId=30f27a49a2e4423fa2300247ceead9cf |
| Java | azure-resourcemanager-containerinstance-generated | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/e709fb4537c54c90a1f2c1e18ba101ab?revisionId=9c45e67014b74e56a20c56c8a7fac3a8 |
| Python | azure-mgmt-containerinstance | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/4dce4e3df4be4bb69febf7dcc125bee0?revisionId=e3a4bafad6ff4d698cd94fb74c2c7bfd |
| Swagger | Microsoft.ContainerInstance | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/57ed6af1fd4140b5b89c9b62c962949f?revisionId=2c7c7737c9614ae7a9558c7c6da94139 |
Not using the latest api version as default due to some missing API paths compared to 2024-05 that trigger this error for the Avocado check: MISSING_APIS_IN_DEFAULT_TAG
Not using the latest api version as default due to some missing API paths compared to 2024-05 that trigger this error for the Avocado check: MISSING_APIS_IN_DEFAULT_TAG
Are these missing API paths not going to be implemented ?
Not using the latest api version as default due to some missing API paths compared to 2024-05 that trigger this error for the Avocado check: MISSING_APIS_IN_DEFAULT_TAG
Are these missing API paths not going to be implemented ?
I don't think so, they were missing in the previous version as well. I think they were deprecated. That check mentions that it will be a false positive in the case of deprecation.
Not using the latest api version as default due to some missing API paths compared to 2024-05 that trigger this error for the Avocado check: MISSING_APIS_IN_DEFAULT_TAG
Are these missing API paths not going to be implemented ?
I don't think so, they were missing in the previous version as well. I think they were deprecated. That check mentions that it will be a false positive in the case of deprecation.
After doing some investigation it seems there is some work to add those paths back on another PR. I contacted the owner of the PR and we will sync them.
Not using the latest api version as default due to some missing API paths compared to 2024-05 that trigger this error for the Avocado check: MISSING_APIS_IN_DEFAULT_TAG
Are these missing API paths not going to be implemented ?
I don't think so, they were missing in the previous version as well. I think they were deprecated. That check mentions that it will be a false positive in the case of deprecation.
After doing some investigation it seems there is some work to add those paths back on another PR. I contacted the owner of the PR and we will sync them.
The PRs are synched, nothing is missing now.
please fix the newly introduced lintdiff warnings from here : https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/31223/checks?check_run_id=32598293246
please fix the newly introduced lintdiff warnings from here : https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/31223/checks?check_run_id=32598293246
Are any of these warnings a blocker or a serious issue? This PR is important for Ignite which is soon, so we would prefer to merge if they can be ignored. What do you think?
please fix the newly introduced lintdiff warnings from here : https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/31223/checks?check_run_id=32598293246
Are any of these warnings a blocker or a serious issue? This PR is important for Ignite which is soon, so we would prefer to merge if they can be ignored. What do you think?
you can ignore the ones that say : ⚠️ AvoidNestedProperties
FOr the EnumInsteadOfBoolean I will leave it to your team to review these and change since this is a strong recommendation.
For the others they must be fixed. These are straightforward fixes and should not really take you that long to fix.
please fix the newly introduced lintdiff warnings from here : https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/31223/checks?check_run_id=32598293246
Are any of these warnings a blocker or a serious issue? This PR is important for Ignite which is soon, so we would prefer to merge if they can be ignored. What do you think?
you can ignore the ones that say : ⚠️ AvoidNestedProperties
FOr the EnumInsteadOfBoolean I will leave it to your team to review these and change since this is a strong recommendation.
For the others they must be fixed. These are straightforward fixes and should not really take you that long to fix.
All lint diff warnings except for the 2 that were acceptable were fixed.
Among other things, the SubscriptionIdParameter in the file was removed and replaced with the one from common-types. However, that one has something which was missing in the parameter in the file: "format": "uuid".
!!!This is what triggered the breaking change check, but it's not a "real" breaking change, the usage is not changed and that parameter was always supposed to be a uuid.
"maxBatchPercent": {
you can add the limits for minimum and maximum of 100 if this is 0-100% range
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3605 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1b101e87937bee1ead9c32c4a52d8635ee, deletion_comment = False)
"inPlaceUpdate": {
you can use in this case an enum like rollingUpdateType with values like [InPlace, Recreate]
Enums are always a more flexible and future proof option because they allow additional values to be added in the future in a non-breaking way, e.g. [Enabled, Disabled, Suspended, Deallocated].
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3619 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1b101e87937bee1ead9c32c4a52d8635ee, deletion_comment = False)
"enum": [
why the values of this enum is all lowecase and not using the PascalCase as in the provided link and like shareAccessType? #Resolved
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3816 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1b101e87937bee1ead9c32c4a52d8635ee, deletion_comment = False)
"inPlaceUpdate": {you can use in this case an enum like rollingUpdateType with values like [InPlace, Recreate]
Enums are always a more flexible and future proof option because they allow additional values to be added in the future in a non-breaking way, e.g. [Enabled, Disabled, Suspended, Deallocated].
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3619 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1, deletion_comment = False)
Replace option is a default option for the customers. Customer can opt for in-place update by setting the in-place flag in the rolling update profile. Although, that's a good suggestion, and we can take that change in upcoming versions.
"enum": [why the values of this enum is all lowecase and not using the PascalCase as in the provided link and like shareAccessType?
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3816 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1, deletion_comment = False)
this change is not related to this PR. We can definitely address it in upcoming version but can we please ignore it if it is not blocking.
"enum": [why the values of this enum is all lowecase and not using the PascalCase as in the provided link and like shareAccessType? Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3816 in c4654f1. [](commit_id = c4654f1, deletion_comment = False)
this change is not related to this PR. We can definitely address it in upcoming version but can we please ignore it if it is not blocking.
this enum is added in this PR so it is related
"description": "learn more at: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/storagerp/file-shares/create?tabs=HTTP#shareaccesstier",
Could you update this description a bit? This are used to generate comments & documentation, so they're used by customers to discover what these properties mean. #Resolved
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3815 in 57781eb. [](commit_id = 57781ebe0ecce1898909948a6ca598d41c810bcb, deletion_comment = False)
API change check
APIView has identified API level changes in this PR and created following API reviews.
"description": "learn more at: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/storagerp/file-shares/create?tabs=HTTP#shareaccesstier",Could you update this description a bit? This are used to generate comments & documentation, so they're used by customers to discover what these properties mean.
Refers to: specification/containerinstance/resource-manager/Microsoft.ContainerInstance/preview/2024-11-01-preview/containerInstance.json:3815 in 57781eb. [](commit_id = 57781eb, deletion_comment = False)
addressed all the comments
@razvanbadea-msft this swagger version is critical for upcoming Ignite event. Hence please suggest if there are any other important changes needed. The swagger needs to be published at priority before the Ignite event.