azure-rest-api-specs
azure-rest-api-specs copied to clipboard
Azure
Pachaturvedi/elastic new version 2022 09 01 preview
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:
- 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
- [x] Other, please clarify : Sync from azure-rest-api-specs-pr
- 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. December 2022
- When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month. December 2022
- 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
- [x] 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.
-
[x] 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.
Hi, @pachaturvedi Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.
![openapi-workflow-bot[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/81125?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Hi, @pachaturvedi your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]).
Swagger Validation Report
️❌BreakingChange: 6 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| elastic.json | 2022-07-01-preview(593832e) | 2022-07-01-preview(main) |
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version adds a response code '200'. New: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1083:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1086:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code '200'. New: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1150:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code '202'. New: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1153:11 |
|
The new version removes the response code '201' Old: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1083:11 |
|
The new version removes the response code '201' Old: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1144:11 |
️⚠️Breaking Change(Cross-Version): 32 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)] | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| elastic.json | 2022-09-01-preview(593832e) | 2020-07-01(main) |
| elastic.json | 2022-09-01-preview(593832e) | 2022-07-01-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]
| compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.0.0) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2022-07-01-preview | package-2022-07-01-preview(593832e) | package-2022-07-01-preview(main) |
| package-2022-09-01-preview | package-2022-09-01-preview(593832e) | default(main) |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The parameter 'ApiVersionParameter' is defined in global parameters section without 'x-ms-parameter-location' extension. This would add the parameter as the client property. Please ensure that this is exactly you want. If so, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'client'. Else, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'method'. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L2263 |
|
The parameter 'SubscriptionIdParameter' is defined in global parameters section without 'x-ms-parameter-location' extension. This would add the parameter as the client property. Please ensure that this is exactly you want. If so, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'client'. Else, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'method'. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L2281 |
|
The parameter 'ApiVersionParameter' is defined in global parameters section without 'x-ms-parameter-location' extension. This would add the parameter as the client property. Please ensure that this is exactly you want. If so, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'client'. Else, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'method'. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L2268 |
|
The parameter 'SubscriptionIdParameter' is defined in global parameters section without 'x-ms-parameter-location' extension. This would add the parameter as the client property. Please ensure that this is exactly you want. If so, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'client'. Else, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'method'. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L2276 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1444 |
| :warning: SchemaDescriptionOrTitle | Schema should have a description or title. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1658 |
| :warning: AvoidNestedProperties | Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1769 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1911 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1915 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1919 |
| :warning: AvoidNestedProperties | Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L1970 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L2039 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-07-01-preview/elastic.json#L2212 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1444 |
| :warning: SchemaDescriptionOrTitle | Schema should have a description or title. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1658 |
| :warning: AvoidNestedProperties | Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1769 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1911 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1915 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1919 |
| :warning: AvoidNestedProperties | Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L1970 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L2044 |
| :warning: EnumInsteadOfBoolean | Booleans properties are not descriptive in all cases and can make them to use, evaluate whether is makes sense to keep the property as boolean or turn it into an enum. Location: Microsoft.Elastic/preview/2022-09-01-preview/elastic.json#L2217 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️❌~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 23 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]
Tag package-2022-09-01-preview; Prod region: Deployed
Test run on region: centralindia; Operation coverage: total: 27, untested: 0, failed: 23, passed: 4
Service API Readiness Test failed. Check pipeline artifact for detail report.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
statusCode: 400, errorCode: InvalidResource, errorMessage: The resource definition is invalid. Source: runtime OperationId: Monitors_Create |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: Monitors_Get |
|
statusCode: 400, errorCode: InvalidResource, errorMessage: The resource definition is invalid. Source: runtime OperationId: Monitors_Update |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ParentResourceNotFound, errorMessage: Can not perform requested operation on nested resource. Parent resource 'monitornltk4oa' not found. Source: runtime OperationId: TagRules_CreateOrUpdate |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ParentResourceNotFound, errorMessage: Can not perform requested operation on nested resource. Parent resource 'monitornltk4oa' not found. Source: runtime OperationId: TagRules_List |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ParentResourceNotFound, errorMessage: Can not perform requested operation on nested resource. Parent resource 'monitornltk4oa' not found. Source: runtime OperationId: TagRules_Get |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: AssociateTrafficFilter_Associate |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: createAndAssociateIPFilter_Create |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: createAndAssociatePLFilter_Create |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: ExternalUser_CreateOrUpdate |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: TrafficFilters_Delete |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: DetachAndDeleteTrafficFilter_Delete |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: DetachTrafficFilter_Update |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: AllTrafficFilters_list |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: listAssociatedTrafficFilters_list |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: DeploymentInfo_List |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: MonitoredResources_List |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: UpgradableVersions_Details |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: VMHost_List |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: Monitor_Upgrade |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: VMCollection_Update |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ResourceNotFound, errorMessage: The Resource 'Microsoft.Elastic/monitors/monitornltk4oa' under resource group 'apiTest-gSUnXb-21670' was not found. For more details please go to https://aka.ms/ARMResourceNotFoundFix Source: runtime OperationId: VMIngestion_Details |
|
statusCode: 404, errorCode: ParentResourceNotFound, errorMessage: Can not perform requested operation on nested resource. Parent resource 'monitornltk4oa' not found. Source: runtime OperationId: TagRules_Delete |
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️CadlAPIView 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.
️️✔️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.
![openapi-pipeline-app[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/65541?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Swagger Generation Artifacts
️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account.
️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]
⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 7cfe0170743da14f13275e73a2b8becd90ce9a05. SDK Automation 14.0.0command sh scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/initOutput.json cmderr [automation_init.sh] WARNING: Skipping azure-nspkg as it is not installed. command sh scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateOutput.json cmderr [automation_generate.sh] cmderr [automation_generate.sh] npm notice New major version of npm available! 8.19.3 -> 9.4.2 cmderr [automation_generate.sh] npm notice Changelog: <https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v9.4.2> cmderr [automation_generate.sh] npm notice Run `npm install -g [email protected]` to update! cmderr [automation_generate.sh] npm notice
️✔️track2_azure-mgmt-elastic [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]info [Changelog] ### Features Added info [Changelog] info [Changelog] - Model DeploymentInfoResponse has a new parameter deployment_url
️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]
⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 7cfe0170743da14f13275e73a2b8becd90ce9a05. SDK Automation 14.0.0command ./eng/mgmt/automation/init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initOutput.json cmderr [init.sh] [notice] A new release of pip available: 22.3.1 -> 23.0 cmderr [init.sh] [notice] To update, run: pip install --upgrade pip cmderr [init.sh] [notice] A new release of pip available: 22.3.1 -> 23.0 cmderr [init.sh] [notice] To update, run: pip install --upgrade pip command ./eng/mgmt/automation/generate.py ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateOutput.json
️✔️azure-resourcemanager-elastic [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]
️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from 7cfe0170743da14f13275e73a2b8becd90ce9a05. SDK Automation 14.0.0command sh ./eng/scripts/automation_init.sh ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/initInput.json ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/initOutput.json command generator automation-v2 ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/generateInput.json ../../../../../azure-sdk-for-go_tmp/generateOutput.json
️✔️sdk/resourcemanager/elastic/armelastic [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]info [Changelog] ### Features Added info [Changelog] info [Changelog] - New field `DeploymentURL` in struct `DeploymentInfoResponse` info [Changelog] info [Changelog] Total 0 breaking change(s), 1 additive change(s).
️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]
⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 7cfe0170743da14f13275e73a2b8becd90ce9a05. Schema Automation 14.0.0command .sdkauto/initScript.sh ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initOutput.json cmderr [initScript.sh] WARN old lockfile cmderr [initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile The package-lock.json file was created with an old version of npm, cmderr [initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile so supplemental metadata must be fetched from the registry. cmderr [initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile cmderr [initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile This is a one-time fix-up, please be patient... cmderr [initScript.sh] npm WARN old lockfile warn File azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initOutput.json not found to read command .sdkauto/generateScript.sh ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/generateOutput.json
️✔️elastic [View full logs] [Release Schema Changes]
️️✔️ azure-powershell succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from 7cfe0170743da14f13275e73a2b8becd90ce9a05. SDK Automation 14.0.0command sh ./tools/SwaggerCI/init.sh ../azure-powershell_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-powershell_tmp/initOutput.json command pwsh ./tools/SwaggerCI/psci.ps1 ../azure-powershell_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-powershell_tmp/generateOutput.json
️✔️Az.Elastic [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]
Generated ApiView
| Language | Package Name | ApiView Link |
|---|---|---|
| Go | sdk/resourcemanager/elastic/armelastic | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/06497b26632f43d3b591bbd1481cb81e |
| Java | azure-resourcemanager-elastic | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/3ff5d04c87e14d3ea73c957b69e88c57 |
@ArcturusZhang Regarding the breaking changes, this is a swagger fix from our side because we did not have a 202 response for all x-ms-long-running-operation: true (as mentioned in link )
Regarding Model validation failures, we've always been returning the status in the previous versions as well. Is this something for which we can get exception?
Hi @pachaturvedi, 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 |
Hi @pachaturvedi, 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.
Hi, @pachaturvedi, For review efficiency consideration, when creating a new api version, it is required to place API specs of the base version in the first commit, and push new version updates into successive commits. You can use OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. For more details refer to the wiki. Or you could onboard API spec pipeline
Please ensure to respond feedbacks from the ARM API reviewer. When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove ARMChangesRequested
Once you have addressed all feedback provided OR provided a rationale on why the feedback was not addressed, please remove the "ARMChangesRequested" label from the PR.
@zizw123 Addressed all the review comments. Could you please look into this?
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.
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.
Please see this, the new response should be applied to the new api-version, adding it to previous version might break existing users.
@zizw123 this feature is not released to customers yet. It is still under the feature flag. This change was already approved in the previous versions (ref : https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/20791) But since this is not the right way, I've updated it in both the versions and we'll fix this in our RP code base as well so that there is no breaking change across versions. If you feel I can setup a quick call early next week and we can discuss this more on this if required. Kindly let me know.
TIA
@zizw123 this feature is not released to customers yet. It is still under the feature flag. This change was already approved in the previous versions (ref : #20791) But since this is not the right way, I've updated it in both the versions and we'll fix this in our RP code base as well so that there is no breaking change across versions. If you feel I can setup a quick call early next week and we can discuss this more on this if required. Kindly let me know.
TIA
Sounds reasonable to me, but since the PR is tagged with breaking changes, this PR needs to be reviewed by them as well. The rests look good to me. After that is done, I can sign off this PR. Thanks.
Hi, @pachaturvedi. 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.
Update: Following up with Breaking change team for approval - https://msazure.visualstudio.com/One/_workitems/edit/16646257
@zizw123 We've got the Breaking change approval. Could you please approve the PR?
@honghr Could you please help me with the ~[Staging] Service API Readiness Test . This failure was something which I was not seeing previously.
@pilor @rkmanda Do the 202 Async patterns here look good to you? I'm also a little confused why a POST action that creates a resource can't return 201 Created plus a Location header pointing at the created resource, as final status. I thought that was a pretty common pattern.
If an async POST call is not strictly following https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/async-api-reference.md#call-action-post-asynchronously then its incorrect. POST calls should not be used to create resources. While that is used in REST sometimes it is not how Azure APIs work
@pilor I agree POST calls shouldn't be used to create resources, but seems like in this case it already is (maybe with justification, I'm not sure), so I think the main question is what to do about it in this case - big breaking changes, little breaking changes, or nothing.
@pilor I agree POST calls shouldn't be used to create resources, but seems like in this case it already is (maybe with justification, I'm not sure), so I think the main question is what to do about it in this case - big breaking changes, little breaking changes, or nothing.
thats a question for breaking change folks imo :-) Sounds like SDKs don't work with the existing design but changing the design is a breaking change
@rkmanda @TimLovellSmith @honghr @pilor Hey folks, addressing the POST design implementation here for traffic filters. The traffic filters are a resource which are not maintained by our service but by an external partner team. Since we do not want to maintain ARM lifecycle for this resource, we have modelled the CRUD operations for this as POST calls. This scenario was addressed when we merged this in the private repo. In case you need more clarification we can discuss this over a call. Thanks! //@pachaturvedi
@utkarshjain1508 A call sounds like a good idea; just because it is leveraging an external system doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't use REST verbs. Was there some other reason?
POST design implementation
Hi @TimLovellSmith, @rkmanda , @pilor I've setup a call on 01/20/23 9:00 am PST to discuss more on this. Let me know if that time doesn't works for you.
Discussed this offline with the team and explained to them the issue with modelling these functions as POST. Main ones being that once these are modelled as POST you lose most benefits that ARM provides like :
- Deploying the resource with a template
- Applying the resource as a policy affect or trigger
- Any resource level RBAC
- Potentially storing these in ARG
Once your team has finished the internal discussions on the correct modelling for this please restart the review by removing "ARMChangesRequested" tag. If you decide to keep the current model please have any senior member from your team respond to this comment signing off on this design and understanding that once this API is released it is subject to the azure breaking changes policy for deprecation : http://aka.ms/AzBreakingChangesPolicy
Discussed this offline with the team and explained to them the issue with modelling these functions as POST. Main ones being that once these are modelled as POST you lose most benefits that ARM provides like :
- Deploying the resource with a template
- Applying the resource as a policy affect or trigger
- Any resource level RBAC
- Potentially storing these in ARG
Once your team has finished the internal discussions on the correct modelling for this please restart the review by removing "ARMChangesRequested" tag. If you decide to keep the current model please have any senior member from your team respond to this comment signing off on this design and understanding that once this API is released it is subject to the azure breaking changes policy for deprecation : http://aka.ms/AzBreakingChangesPolicy
Thanks @raosuhas, @TimLovellSmith for all the feedback here and helping us explore various options. We had multiple rounds of discussion internally within team and with ISV partner. We came to the conclusion that we want to move ahead with the current design approach (Using POST) and we fully understand the limitations.
Could you please approve the PR if there are no other feedback apart from this.
