Added built-in workflow operation

[alexkarcher-msft]

ARM API Information (Control Plane)

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow. Azure 1st Party Service can try out the Shift Left experience to initiate API design review from ADO code repo. If you are interested, may request engineering support by filling in with the form https://aka.ms/ShiftLeftSupportForm.

Changelog

Add a changelog entry for 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
   • [x] 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.
3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
4. By default, Azure SDKs of all languages (.NET/Python/Java/JavaScript for both management-plane SDK and data-plane SDK, Go for management-plane SDK only ) MUST be refreshed with/after swagger of new version is published. If you prefer NOT to refresh any specific SDK language upon swagger updates in the current PR, please leave details with justification here.

Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):

• [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:

• [x] Check this box if any of the following apply 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 copy the existing version into the new directory structure for first commit and then push new changes, including version updates, in separate commits. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For 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 you have any breaking changes as defined in the Breaking Change Policy, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board.

Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Additional details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking Change Wiki.

NOTE: To update API(s) in public preview for over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi, @alexkarcher-msft 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 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

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

There are no breaking changes.

compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.1)]	new version	base version
WebApps.json	2022-09-01(1a41c13)	2022-03-01(main)

️⚠️LintDiff: 4 Warnings warning [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0)	new version	base version
package-2022-09	package-2022-09(1a41c13)	package-2022-09(release-web-Microsoft.Web-2022-09-01)

[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message	Related RPC [For API reviewers]
:warning: R4030 - UniqueXmsExample	Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: Deploys workflow artifacts Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L21606
:warning: R4030 - UniqueXmsExample	Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: List the workflows Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L21798
:warning: R4030 - UniqueXmsExample	Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: GET a workflow Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L21854
:warning: R4030 - UniqueXmsExample	Do not have duplicate name of x-ms-example, make sure every x-ms-example name unique. Duplicate x-ms-example: List the ListInstanceWorkflowsConfigurationConnections Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L21896

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5522
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5580
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5637
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5697
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,baseAddress,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5760
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,processId,instanceId should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L5827
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,backupId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L9182
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,backupId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L9236
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,backupId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L9293
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,backupId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L9358
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,appSettingKey,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L10437
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,connectionStringKey,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L10548
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,snapshotId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11291
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,snapshotId,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11347
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,webJobName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11562
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,webJobName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11620
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,webJobName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11676
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,webJobName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11733
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,id,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L11965
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,id,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12019
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,id,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12082
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,id,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12138
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,domainOwnershipIdentifierName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12304
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,domainOwnershipIdentifierName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12358
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,domainOwnershipIdentifierName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12421
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,domainOwnershipIdentifierName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12475
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,functionName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12804
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,functionName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12858
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,functionName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12918
❌ R4039 - ParametersOrder	The parameters:resourceGroupName,name,functionName,keyName,slot should be kept in the same order as they present in the path. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L12971

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️❌ModelValidation: 44 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L11:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L16:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L11:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L16:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettings.json#L13:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettings.json#L20:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSetting.json#L12:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetSitePrivateEndpointConnection.json#L12:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/ApproveRejectSitePrivateEndpointConnection.json#L21:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/ApproveRejectSitePrivateEndpointConnection.json#L39:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicySlot.json#L12:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicySlot.json#L17:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicySlot.json#L12:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicySlot.json#L17:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettingsSlot.json#L14:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettingsSlot.json#L21:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettingSlot.json#L13:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetSitePrivateEndpointConnectionSlot.json#L13:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/ApproveRejectSitePrivateEndpointConnectionSlot.json#L22:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/ApproveRejectSitePrivateEndpointConnectionSlot.json#L40:15
❌ LRO_RESPONSE_HEADER	Long running operation should return location or azure-AsyncOperation in header but not provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23145:22 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/WorkflowTriggerHistories_Resubmit.json
❌ LRO_RESPONSE_HEADER	Long running operation should return location or azure-AsyncOperation in header but not provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23255:22 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/WorkflowTriggers_Run.json
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L11:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L16:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetPublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L11:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L24683:47 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/UpdatePublishingCredentialsPolicy.json#L16:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettings.json#L13:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSettings.json#L20:11
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json#L23534:23 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetKeyVaultReferencesForAppSetting.json#L12:15
❌ MISSING_RESOURCE_ID	id is required to return in response of GET/PUT resource calls but not being provided Url: Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/CommonDefinitions.json#L2542:51 ExampleUrl: stable/2022-09-01/examples/GetSitePrivateEndpointConnection.json#L12:15

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️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 Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️SDK Breaking Change Tracking warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-sdk-for-net-track2 failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-java succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-js succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️🔄 azure-resource-manager-schemas inProgress [Detail]

️❌ azure-powershell failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

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

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Generated ApiView

Language	Package Name	ApiView Link
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/appservice/armappservice	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/46957ca28b9746119298358f09e197fd
Java	azure-resourcemanager-appservice-generated	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/fa5a409c24ca4691a92e6d10c42b640a
JavaScript	@azure/arm-appservice	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/b384b300849341038bc64e703f4865e1

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi @alexkarcher-msft, 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.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Please ensure to respond feedbacks from the ARM API reviewer. When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove ARMChangesRequested

[TimLovellSmith]

@alexkarcher-msft Please also fill out the survey checklist in the first comment on this PR to aid further reviewing.

---

In reply to: 1272174068

---

In reply to: 1272174068

[alexkarcher-msft]

As per the checklist, elaborating that this is documentation for a series of APIs that have been in production since early 2020. The definition updates are required for our CLI and SDK team to generate tooling.

The APIs are all based on the previous version in our consumption platform over at Microsoft.Logic: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/tree/main/specification/logic/resource-manager

[weidongxu-microsoft]

please check the LintDiff

[alexkarcher-msft]

please check the LintDiff

@weidongxu-microsoft can you be more specific? I have cleared up all of the lintdiff errors brought up by the other two ARM reviewers.

[weidongxu-microsoft]

@alexkarcher-msft

This https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/21015/checks?check_run_id=8970229390

It is a required CI. I cannot merge if it fails.

[alexkarcher-msft]

@weidongxu-microsoft Can you provide any documentation or help troubleshooting the lint-diff errors? It seems to be failing to build with no logs I can find to pinpoint the failure. With other reviewers we've been working off the lint-diff [staging] validation, which seems to be building correctly.

[alexkarcher-msft]

Ping @weidongxu-microsoft . Still waiting on your response

[weidongxu-microsoft]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines[bot]]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[weidongxu-microsoft]

1. You need to pass ARM review
2. I am re-running the CI to see if I can get clearer message, but if no, you can ask in channel as bot comment https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/21015#issuecomment-1269124610. Given all codegen fails, I think there is something wrong in your swagger.
3. Please check "Breaking Change(Cross-Version)" as well.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi @alexkarcher-msft, 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.

[alexkarcher-msft]

@weidongxu-microsoft , thanks for all the help! I've now gotten most of the SDKs building and am passing breaking change and lintdiff tests. Go, Java, and JS tests are passing, which is the same SDKs passing for other PRs into this branch: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/20857/checks?check_run_id=8524397168

The modelvalidation issues are not related to changes I've made.

[TimLovellSmith]

        }

Optional extra refactorings (probably better as a followup PR?) You have a lot of things where it looks like pulling out into a 'parameters' definition section and just $ref ing them everywhere would make things much easier to check/maintain if it is a manually generated swagger.

---

In reply to: 1299373331

---

Refers to: specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/WebApps.json:21451 in 6573b62. [](commit_id = 6573b62f8201ab0f69aeb6b25e984686074362a0, deletion_comment = False)

[weidongxu-microsoft]

@alexkarcher-msft

MISSING_RESOURCE_ID is a new rule.

You can either fix them, or add suppression (that would needs another suppression review by tooling).

[TimLovellSmith]

@alexkarcher-msft

MISSING_RESOURCE_ID is a new rule.

You can either fix them, or add suppression (that would need another suppression review by tooling).

From ARM POV, I think its most important to fix them for any resources you are returning in list responses.

[alexkarcher-msft]

@alexkarcher-msft MISSING_RESOURCE_ID is a new rule. You can either fix them, or add suppression (that would need another suppression review by tooling).

From ARM POV, I think its most important to fix them for any resources you are returning in list responses.

@weidongxu-microsoft & @TimLovellSmith , these routes are all owned by another team sharing this same definition. I kicked off an email thread with @naveedaz to track that work.

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Sure. Also as a new rule, it might have bug. I would expect e.g. Resource and ProxyResource always have "id" in response.

[ghost]

Hi, @alexkarcher-msft. 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.

[alexkarcher-msft]

Still waiting on @naveedaz to clear up these new API requirements from unrelated parts of the definition blocking this PR.

[naveedaz]

@TimLovellSmith / @weidongxu-microsoft Can you please merge this PR?

[weidongxu-microsoft]

OK, I will merge it ignoring failure at ModelValidation. https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/21015#issuecomment-1269122734

But note that you still need to either suppress or fix it in 2022-09-01 branch.