New Incidents stable version #14000
Merged
New Incidents stable version #14000
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, @roherzbe 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 |
|
[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 Validation Report
|
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The new version has a different 'allOf' property than the previous one. New: resource-manager/common/1.0/types.json#L38:5 Old: resource-manager/common/1.0/types.json#L38:5 |
️⚠️LintDiff: 11 Warnings warning [Detail]
- Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.9.2 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.6 )
- Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.9.2 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.6 )
Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
| The child tracked resource, 'comments' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/operations.json#L69 |
|
| The child tracked resource, 'relations' with immediate parent 'Incident', must have a list by immediate parent operation. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/operations.json#L69 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L851 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L2213 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L2382 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L2603 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L3569 |
|
| 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L3608 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L841 |
|
| Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: isDomainJoined Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L1491 |
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
| Rule | Message |
|---|---|
|
The top-level resource 'Incident' does not have list by subscription operation, please add it. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L1641 |
|
The response schema of operations API '/providers/Microsoft.SecurityInsights/operations' does not match the ARM specification. Please standardize the schema. Location: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/operations.json#L37 |
| Guid used in model definition 'ClientInfo' for property 'objectId'. 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L983 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'IncidentOwnerInfo' for property 'objectId'. 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L1955 |
|
| Guid used in model definition 'UserInfo' for property 'objectId'. 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: Microsoft.SecurityInsights/stable/2021-04-01/Incidents.json#L3748 |
️️✔️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: 5 Errors, 1 Warnings failed [Detail]
- Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.8.9)
- current:stable/2021-04-01/operations.json compared with base:preview/2021-03-01-preview/operations.json
️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
There is no credential detected.
️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation
- The following tags are being changed in this PR
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-04-01-only",
"details":"> Loading AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-04-01-only",
"details":"> Loading AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.15.456->4.15.456)"|
The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"securityinsights/resource-manager/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2021-03-preview-only",
"details":"> Loading AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.15.456->4.15.456)"|
️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for PrettierCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for SpellCheck.
️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]
Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).
Swagger Generation Artifacts
|
|
Hi @roherzbe, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of
|
|
Hi @roherzbe, 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 Apr 18, 2021
Closed
mentat9
reviewed
May 7, 2021
| @@ -53,10 +67,6 @@ | |||
| "readOnly": true, | |||
| "type": "string" | |||
| }, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @mentat9 ,
I didn't remove an etag, it seems like this because of the way it is shown in the changed files.
Notice that I added a definition named Resource that doesn't contain an etag.
I hope this is clear, let me know if you have any other concerns.
roherzbe
commented
May 10, 2021
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @mentat9 ,
I didn't remove an etag, it seems like this because of the way it is shown in the changed files.
Notice that I added a definition named Resource that doesn't contain an etag.
I hope this is clear, let me know if you have any other concerns.
| @@ -53,10 +67,6 @@ | |||
| "readOnly": true, | |||
| "type": "string" | |||
| }, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @mentat9 ,
I didn't remove an etag, it seems like this because of the way it is shown in the changed files.
Notice that I added a definition named Resource that doesn't contain an etag.
I hope this is clear, let me know if you have any other concerns.
|
Hi, @roherzbe. 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 |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Hi @PhoenixHe-msft |
|
@roherzbe is the new apiVersion deployed in prod? |
|
@leni-msft yes, the new apiVersion is deployed to prod. |
This was referenced Jun 7, 2021
mkarmark
pushed a commit
to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2021
* New stable version * revert ApiVersion change * add operation * Add operations to README * Add missing definition * Fix ApiVersion * Change ApiVersion * Add update & delete incident comments * extracting to common file * Revert "extracting to common file" * Add new API calls * add parameters * new parameters * fix conflict * fix conflict 2 * Add integer format * fix readme * fix Duplicate Schema * fix ApiVersion * ApiVersionParameter * resolve conflict * fix APIVersion * Add Incident Relations * Add missing parameters * fix typo * Add API version to common * modelAsString * revert last 2 changes * Text changes in some descriptions
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.
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.
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 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.