-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added Nic entity type and IoT Device properties to EntityTypes.json #18536
Conversation
Hi, @nmizrahi6 Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips. Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. [email protected] |
Swagger Validation Report
|
Rule | Message |
---|---|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isAuthorized Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1080 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isProgramming Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1085 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isScanner Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1090 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
Rule | Message |
---|---|
Guid used in model definition 'AccountEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L69 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'IoTDeviceEntityProperties' for property 'iotSecurityAgentId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L935 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'MailboxEntityProperties' for property 'externalDirectoryObjectId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1229 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'MailMessageEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1455 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'SecurityGroupEntityProperties' for property 'objectGuid'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2365 |
|
Guid used in model definition 'SubmissionMailEntityProperties' for property 'networkMessageId'. Usage of Guid is not recommanded. If GUIDs are absolutely required in your service, please get sign off from the Azure API review board. Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L2404 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L59 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L744 |
|
Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isVolumeAnomaly Location: preview/2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json#L1315 |
️️✔️
Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️
ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️
SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️
Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.3)
- current:2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json compared with base:2021-10-01/common/EntityTypes.json
- current:2022-05-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json compared with base:2022-04-01-preview/common/EntityTypes.json
️️✔️
SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
️️✔️
PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️
SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks. |
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
Hi, @nmizrahi6 your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]). |
@@ -1000,6 +1010,87 @@ | |||
"readOnly": true, | |||
"type": "array", | |||
"x-ms-identifiers": [] | |||
}, | |||
"nicEntityIds": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Without context, I don't know what format these Ids have, are these Azure resource ids? If yes, how are you handling RBAC?
Hi, @nmizrahi6. 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 |
Postponing change to 2022-07-01-preview version |
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
###Description
Changelog
Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:
What's the purpose of the update?
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.
May 2022
When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
May 2022
If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:
Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.
-[ ] 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.
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.