azure-sdk-for-java
azure-sdk-for-java copied to clipboard
Azure
sdk automation, support breaking change detection
Description
- fix https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/8477
- supported
- mgmt from TypeSpec, test: https://github.com/test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/3381
- mgmt from Swagger, test: https://github.com/test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/3382
- dpg from TypeSpec, test: https://github.com/test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/3383
- dpg from Swagger(Tested locally)
For SDK Automation, breaking change is compared with last GA version(new feature, this is about this PR). For mgmt SDK generation, breaking change is compared with last released version(existing feature, not related to this PR).
Please add an informative description that covers that changes made by the pull request and link all relevant issues.
If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
All SDK Contribution checklist:
- [ ] The pull request does not introduce [breaking changes]
- [ ] CHANGELOG is updated for new features, bug fixes or other significant changes.
- [ ] I have read the contribution guidelines.
General Guidelines and Best Practices
- [ ] Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
- [ ] There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.
Testing Guidelines
- [ ] Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.
@raych1 Would you help take a look at the GenerateApiView error in pipeline? https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=3918930&view=logs&j=a8a7a537-82b0-583c-7971-bac70b9822ca&t=61443e36-1bb1-529f-ff2d-19827770e639
It's looking for non-exist artifact azure-ai-contentsafety-1.1.0-beta.1-sources.json.tgz, which should be azure-ai-contentsafety-1.1.0-beta.1-sources.jar.
Not sure if this is related to the change made by this PR...
Apart from that, sdk automation completed with success: https://github.com/test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/3383/checks?check_run_id=26794978839
For SDK Automation, breaking change is compared with last GA version(new feature). For mgmt SDK generation, breaking change is compared with last released version(existing feature).
@XiaofeiCao can you explain why Java uses different base versions for above two scenarios?
Regarding APIView failures, I noticed that it fails for Java in other test PRs too. But API view was created successfully for other languages. We shall take a further look. for example, this PR
@raych1
The "mgmt SDK generation" part is for generating SDK for release. No changelog nor breaking change flag would sent to you or your pipeline. Here we uses our existing logic (mostly, GA compares with GA, preview compares with a prior version) for SDK changelog.
Only the "SDK Automation" relates to you / PR.
@XiaofeiCao can you explain why Java uses different base versions for above two scenarios?
We didn't touch existing codegen logic, like Weidong explained above. This PR's only about SDK automation. I've updated the description.
Regarding APIView failures, I noticed that it fails for Java in other test PRs too. But API view was created successfully for other languages. We shall take a further look. for example, this PR
Thanks. Java's error is strange, since the output apiViewArtifact looks OK to me: https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=3923824&view=logs&j=a8a7a537-82b0-583c-7971-bac70b9822ca&t=37e3947b-3cfb-5d36-86ba-0e22bb7dbc33&l=1484
@XiaofeiCao ,
APIView has been generated successfully in this PR for Java, the failure in this PR should not be related to your changes. https://github.com/test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/3390#issuecomment-2202249969
@XiaofeiCao ,
APIView has been generated successfully in this PR for Java, the failure in this PR should not be related to your changes. test-repo-billy/azure-rest-api-specs#3390 (comment)
Thanks @raych1 !