[Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.KeyVault to add version stable/2019-09-01 #12475
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi, @jiacheng-L 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. vsswagger@microsoft.com |
Swagger Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L447:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L499:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L544:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L741:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keyvault.json#L792:11 |
|
The new version adds a response code 'default'. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/providers.json#L38:11 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 2 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.7.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.5 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.7.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.5 )
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| 'error' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/keys.json#L356 |
|
| 'error' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. New: Microsoft.KeyVault/stable/2019-09-01/secrets.json#L297 |
️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Avocado.
️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for ModelValidation.
️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SemanticValidation.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on preview version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️[Staging] Cross Version BreakingChange (Base on stable version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There are no breaking changes.
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @jiacheng-L, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @jiacheng-L, 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. |
This was referenced Jan 18, 2021
This was referenced Jan 18, 2021
@jiacheng-L , can you take above action for the breaking change review request? |
25 tasks
JeffreyRichter
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2021
heaths
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2021
| "ProviderError": { | ||
| "description": "An error response from Key Vault resource provider", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "error": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the actual error nested? Is this common of mgmt plane?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believed so. Both Key.json and KeyVault.json use the same model.
| }, | ||
| "x-ms-external": true | ||
| }, | ||
| "ProviderErrorBody": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the same as CloudError. Does a new model need to be created? Or is the thought they could diverge at some point?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@heaths They are the same. I updated it to CloudError, as well as the one in secrets.json, which I defined in the last PR
|
@ArcturusZhang @msyyc , can you double check the SDK breaking change? Thanks. |
|
Some of the breaking changes are introduced by #11607 which are not acceptable and wrong. I am looking at the root cause of this issue. Please temporarily do not merge this PR. Thank you |
If you are talking about the .net breaking change, it may probably because I added the Error response block in that PR. Error response model can not covert to the previous 'Vault' result object. Therefore I may need to submit a request to update the .net SDK |
But for Go and Python, I don't have any ideas why those Breaking Change tag would be added |
|
@jiacheng-L the swaggers with the new added response codes generate go code that cannot work properly, because previous the go generator cannot handle the extension |
jlichwa
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2021
@ArcturusZhang , let me know once your fix is merged and I will remove |
25 tasks
|
Hi @raych1 after a rethinking, I suppose it does not make sense blocking this PR from merging by an issue caused by a merged PR. Please merge this when it is ready as usual. Therefore I removed the And BTW the fix is ready, but we need to test it. |
Thanks @ArcturusZhang , it makes sense. @msyyc, can you please check if this PR has python sdk breaking change? |
|
For python, the PR is ok |
This was referenced Feb 5, 2021
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
…stable/2019-09-01 (Azure#12475) * Add missing default error responses * fix copy/paste error * unify the error model
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a PR generated at OpenAPI Hub. You can view your work branch via this link.
Changelog
Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.
Contribution checklist:
If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.
ARM API Review Checklist
Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.
Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from API 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.