azure-rest-api-specs
azure-rest-api-specs copied to clipboard
Azure
Curiekim0 databricks microsoft.databricks 2024 05 01
ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request
[!TIP] Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the
Getting helpsection at the bottom of this PR description.
[!NOTE] As of January 2024 there is no PR assignee. This is expected. See https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
PR review workflow diagram
Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.
Click here to see the details of Step 1, Breaking Changes review
If you are in purview of Step 1 of the diagram, follow the Breaking Changes review process.
IMPORTANT! This applies even if you believe your PR was mislabeled, for any reason, including tool failure.
Click here to see the details of Step 2, ARM review
See https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
Click here to see the diagram footnotes
Diagram footnotes
[1] See ARM review queue (for PR merge queues, see [2]).
[2] public repo merge queue, private repo merge queue (for ARM review queue, [1])
The ARM reviewer on-call engineer visits the merge queue twice a day, so the approximate ETA for merges is 12 - 24 hours.
Purpose of this PR
What's the purpose of this PR? Check the specific option that applies. This is mandatory!
- [ ] New resource provider.
- [x] New API version for an existing resource provider. (If API spec is not defined in TypeSpec, the PR should have been generated using OpenAPI Hub).
- [ ] Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
- [ ] Update existing version to fix OpenAPI spec quality issues in S360.
- [ ] Other, please clarify:
- edit this with your clarification
Due diligence checklist
To merge this PR, you must go through the following checklist and confirm you understood and followed the instructions by checking all the boxes:
- [x] I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
- [x] I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
ARM resource provider contract and
REST guidelines (estimated time: 4 hours).
I understand this is required before I can proceed to the diagram Step 2, "ARM API changes review", for this PR.
Additional information
Viewing API changes
For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.
Suppressing failures
If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the suppressions guide to get approval.
Getting help
- First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the
Purpose of this PRandDue diligence checklist. - To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the
Next Steps to Mergecomment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state. - For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
- For help with PR workflow diagram Step 2 (ARM review), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
- If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in
queuedstate, please add a comment with contents/azp run. This should result in a new comment denoting aPR validation pipelinehas started and the checks should be updated after few minutes. - If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.
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}
Swagger Validation Report
️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️❌Breaking Change(Cross-Version): 50 Errors, 53 Warnings failed [Detail]
| Compared specs (v0.10.8) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| accessconnector.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2023-05-01(main) |
| accessconnector.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2022-10-01-preview(main) |
| databricks.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2023-02-01(main) |
| databricks.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2023-09-15-preview(main) |
| vnetpeering.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2023-02-01(main) |
| vnetpeering.json | 2024-05-01(197ae25) | 2023-09-15-preview(main) |
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest stable version:
Only 29 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
The following breaking changes are detected by comparison with the latest preview version:
Only 29 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️⚠️LintDiff: 2 Warnings warning [Detail]
| Compared specs (v2.2.2) | new version | base version |
|---|---|---|
| package-2024-05-01 | package-2024-05-01(197ae25) | default(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
| Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
|---|---|---|
| :warning: AvoidNestedProperties | Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L878 |
|
| :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.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L1183 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Only 29 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The resource name parameter 'connectorName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L37 |
|
Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L78 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L104 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L116 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L175 |
|
Properties of a PATCH request body must not be required, property:type. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L197 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L216 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L228 |
|
ProvisioningState must have terminal states: Succeeded, Failed and Canceled. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/accessconnector.json#L343 |
|
The resource name parameter 'workspaceName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L37 |
|
Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L87 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L127 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L136 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L213 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L258 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L261 |
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.Databricks/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L374 |
|
Operations API path must follow the schema provided in the common types. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L375 |
|
The resource name parameter 'workspaceName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L390 |
|
The resource name parameter 'workspaceName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L436 |
|
The resource name parameter 'workspaceName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L482 |
|
The resource name parameter 'workspaceName' should be defined with a 'pattern' restriction. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L528 |
|
201 response schema in long running PUT operation is missing ProvisioningState property. A LRO PUT operations response schema must have ProvisioningState specified for the 200 and 201 status codes. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L573 |
|
Synchronous and long-running PUT operations must have responses with 200, 201 and default return codes. They also must not have other response codes. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L573 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L620 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L629 |
|
Long-running delete operations must have responses with 202, 204 and default return codes. They also must have no other response codes. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L634 |
|
A 202 response should include an Location response header. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L666 |
|
Error response content of long running operations must follow the error schema provided in the common types v2 and above. Location: Microsoft.Databricks/stable/2024-05-01/databricks.json#L678 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView 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.
️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Summary.
️️✔️Automated merging requirements met succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Swagger Generation Artifacts
️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account.
️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python warning [Detail]
⚠️Warning in generating from 4e5612a60c53c913e7c21539a6ca066b5e8e8381. 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. cmderr [automation_init.sh] notice cmderr [automation_init.sh] npm notice New minor version of npm available! 10.5.0 -> 10.7.0 cmderr [automation_init.sh] npm notice Changelog: <https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v10.7.0> cmderr [automation_init.sh] npm notice Run `npm install -g [email protected]` to update! cmderr [automation_init.sh] npm notice command sh scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-python_tmp/generateOutput.json
️✔️azure-mgmt-databricks [Preview SDK Changes]- azure-mgmt-databricks-1.0.0b1.zip
- azure_mgmt_databricks-1.0.0b1-py3-none-any.whl
info [Changelog] ### Features Added info [Changelog] info [Changelog] - Model AccessConnectorProperties has a new parameter refered_by info [Changelog] - Model Workspace has a new parameter access_connector info [Changelog] - Model Workspace has a new parameter default_catalog info [Changelog] - Model Workspace has a new parameter default_storage_firewall info [Changelog] - Model Workspace has a new parameter enhanced_security_compliance info [Changelog] - Model Workspace has a new parameter is_uc_enabled info [Changelog] - Operation WorkspacesOperations.begin_delete has a new optional parameter force_deletion
️🔄 azure-sdk-for-js inProgress [Detail]
️❌ azure-resource-manager-schemas failed [Detail]
❌Failed in generating from 4e5612a60c53c913e7c21539a6ca066b5e8e8381. 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] notice cmderr [initScript.sh] npm notice New minor version of npm available! 10.5.0 -> 10.7.0 cmderr [initScript.sh] npm notice Changelog: <https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v10.7.0> cmderr [initScript.sh] npm notice Run `npm install -g [email protected]` to update! cmderr [initScript.sh] npm notice 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
❌databricks/resource-manager [Preview Schema Changes]
️⚠️ azure-powershell warning [Detail]
⚠️Warning in generating from 4e5612a60c53c913e7c21539a6ca066b5e8e8381. 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.databricks.DefaultTag [Preview SDK Changes]- Az.Databricks.0.1.0.nupkg
⚠️Az.Databricks.Autorest [Preview SDK Changes]
Generated ApiView
| Language | Package Name | ApiView Link |
|---|---|---|
| Swagger | Microsoft.Databricks | https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/f9d12b39de0149c788c5f4055531110f?revisionId=c25bdcb01b7d4f3bbce635fe1ca47367 |
Please address or respond to feedback from the ARM API reviewer.
When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove the ARMChangesRequested label.
This will notify the reviewer to have another look.
If the feedback provided needs further discussion, please use this Teams channel to post your questions - aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel.
Please include [ARM Query] in the title of your question to indicate that it is ARM-related.
![openapi-workflow-bot[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/81125?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Hi @kazrael2119 I saw the recent addition that was added to the sdk-suppression.yaml file. There was a bit of an error in the addition saying that
"Type of parameter enableNoPublicIp of interface WorkspaceCustomParameters is changed from WorkspaceCustomBooleanParameter to boolean"
when it has been changed to another custom parameter named "WorkspaceNoPublicIPBooleanParameter" instead of boolean. The type of the "WorkspaceNoPublicIPBooleanParameter" has been updated to type:object accordingly
Hi @kazrael2119 I saw the recent addition that was added to the sdk-suppression.yaml file. There was a bit of an error in the addition saying that
"Type of parameter enableNoPublicIp of interface WorkspaceCustomParameters is changed from WorkspaceCustomBooleanParameter to boolean"
when it has been changed to another custom parameter named "WorkspaceNPIPBooleanParameter" instead of boolean
@kazrael2119 can you update the suppression to correctly reflect actual changes as per our PR which is WorkspaceNPIPBooleanParameter, it is not boolean
Hi @kazrael2119 I saw the recent addition that was added to the sdk-suppression.yaml file. There was a bit of an error in the addition saying that
"Type of parameter enableNoPublicIp of interface WorkspaceCustomParameters is changed from WorkspaceCustomBooleanParameter to boolean"
when it has been changed to another custom parameter named "WorkspaceNPIPBooleanParameter" instead of boolean
@kazrael2119 can you update the suppression to correctly reflect actual changes as per our PR which is WorkspaceNPIPBooleanParameter, it is not boolean
We have correctly updated type of the parameter, please do update your suppressions
@curiekim0 can you merge latest main branch changes to our branch and also work with @kazrael2119 to remove the suppression he added to our PR
Hi @kazrael2119 we have modified the enableNoPublicIP variable such that it is now of type WorkspaceNoPublicIPBooleanParameter instead of type boolean, could you please help us with removing the sdk suppression that you have added
This PR has ARMChangesRequested label. Please address or respond to feedback from the ARM API reviewer.
When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove the ARMChangesRequested label.
Learn more at aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
By the way I'm working on adding common-types definitions for NetworkSecurityPerimeters - in case your RP supports those, please help me review if you can. https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/28958
@TimLovellSmith I manually fixed up the ARM review labels here per our chat on Teams. If the label should instead by ARMFeedbackRequested, then please remove WaitForARMFeedback. Thank you!
ARMFeedbackRequested
@konrad-jamrozik we are waiting for @TimLovellSmith to add ARMSignOff tag as @mikekistler already added breaking change approved tag. I think the tag you have added is correct.