Dev maps creator dataset 2022 09 01 preview

[tejitpabari99]

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Changelog

Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:

1. What's the purpose of the update?
   • [ ] new service onboarding
   • [X] new API version
   • [ ] update existing version for new feature
   • [ ] update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
   • [ ] Other, please clarify
2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month. 2022-09
3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month. 2022-09
4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the 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 refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

• [x] I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
• [x] I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
• [x] Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and errors have all been fixed in this PR. How to fix?

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: :warning:

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

• Change to data plane APIs
• Adding new properties
• All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

• [ ] Check this box if any of the following appy to the PR so that the label "ARMReview" and "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added by bot to kick off ARM API Review. Missing to check this box in the following scenario may result in delays to the ARM manifest review and deployment.

  • Adding a new service
  • Adding new API(s)
  • Adding a new API version -[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.

• [ ] 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 any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

• [ ] Removing API(s) in a stable version
• [ ] Removing properties in a stable version
• [ ] Removing API version(s) in a stable version
• [ ] Updating API in a 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.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi, @tejitpabari99 Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.

PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.

For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator

If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected]

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger Validation Report

️❌BreakingChange: 3 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]

compared swaggers (via Oad v0.9.7)]	new version	base version
2022-09-01-preview	2022-09-01-preview(acba443)	2022-09-01-preview(main)

Rule	Message
❌ 1038 - AddedPath	The new version is adding a path that was not found in the old version. New: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L133:5
❌ 1038 - AddedPath	The new version is adding a path that was not found in the old version. New: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L220:5
❌ 1038 - AddedPath	The new version is adding a path that was not found in the old version. New: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L281:5

️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0)	new version	base version
package-preview-2022-09	package-preview-2022-09(acba443)	package-preview-2022-09(main)

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Rule	Message
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DatasetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Dataset' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L136
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DatasetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Dataset' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L189
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DatasetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Dataset' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L223
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DatasetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Dataset' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L254
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'DatasetModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'Dataset' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/dataset.json#L284

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ServiceAPIReadinessTest.

️️✔️~[Staging] TrafficValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️❌SDK Track2 Validation: 2 Errors, 2 Warnings failed [Detail]

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/acba443a6973e790c9771287efa81f2382fdcedf/specification/maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md#tag-package-preview-2022-09">maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md#package-preview-2022-09

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message
❌	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"Duplicate object schemas with 'OutputOntology' name detected."
❌	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"Error: 1 errors occured -- cannot continue."
:warning: Modeler/MissingType	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"The schema 'MapConfiguration-configurations' has no type or format information whatsoever. Location:\n file:///mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/maps/data-plane/Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/mapconfiguration.json#/components/schemas/MapConfiguration-configurations"
:warning: Modeler/MissingType	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"The schema 'ConfigurationObject-layers' has no type or format information whatsoever. Location:\n file:///mnt/vss/_work/1/azure-rest-api-specs/specification/maps/data-plane/Creator/preview/2022-09-01-preview/mapconfiguration.json#/components/schemas/ConfigurationObject-layers"

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Rule	Message
:warning: UnkownSecurityScheme	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"Security scheme SharedKey is unknown and will not be processed. Only supported types are AADToken, AzureKey, Anonymous"
:warning: UnkownSecurityScheme	"readme":"maps/data-plane/Creator/readme.md", "tag":"package-preview-2022-09", "details":"Security scheme SasToken is unknown and will not be processed. Only supported types are AADToken, AzureKey, Anonymous"

️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for CadlValidation.

️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Summary.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi @tejitpabari99, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff. If you have any questions, please post your questions in this channel https://aka.ms/swaggersupport.

Task	How to fix	Priority
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback.

[ghost]

Hi, @tejitpabari99. Your PR has no update for 14 days and it is marked as stale PR. If no further update for over 14 days, the bot will close the PR. If you want to refresh the PR, please remove no-recent-activity label.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi @tejitpabari99, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow breaking change policy to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. 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. If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see ARM Traffic statistic. If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback. Note: To avoid breaking change, you can refer to Shift Left Solution for detecting breaking change in early phase at your service code repository.

[mikekistler]

Added the BreakingChangesReviewRequired label because this PR removes a property in a prior GA version. This tooling missed this.

[ghost]

Hi, @tejitpabari99. Your PR has no update for 14 days and it is marked as stale PR. If no further update for over 14 days, the bot will close the PR. If you want to refresh the PR, please remove no-recent-activity label.

[tjprescott]

This API should be reviewed by the API Stewardship Board due to the breaking changes present.

[zhugexubin]

/azp run unifiedPipeline

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

No pipelines are associated with this pull request.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

NewApiVersionRequired reason: A service’s API is a contract with customers and is represented by using the api-version query parameter. Changes such as adding an optional property to a request/response or introducing a new operation is a change to the service’s contract and therefore requires a new api-version value. This is critically important for documentation, client libraries, and customer support. EXAMPLE: if a customer calls a service in the public cloud using api-version=2020-07-27, the new property or operation may exist but if they call the service in a government cloud, air-gapped cloud, or Azure Stack Hub cloud using the same api-version, the property or operation may not exist. Because there is no clear relationship between the service api-version and the new property/operation, customers can’t trust the documentation and Azure customer have difficulty helping customers diagnose issues. In addition, each client library version documents the service version it supports. When an optional property or new operation is added to a service and its Swagger, new client libraries must be produced to expose this functionality to customers. Without updating the api-version, it is unclear to customers which version of a client library supports these new features.