Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace. #20977

prashmo · 2022-10-03T19:28:11Z

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
- new API version
- update existing version for new feature
- update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
- Other, please clarify
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.
Oct 10, we are publishing an already review API version to public.
Service will be available in Central US during preview.
When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
Oct 10
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.

We are working on publishing .NET SDK in a separate PR:
Add SDK for Defender for DevOps by JohnathonMohr · Pull Request #1783 · Azure/azure-sdk-for-net-pr (github.com)

Contribution checklist (MS Employees Only):

I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
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: ⚠️

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:

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.
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.

openapi-workflow-bot · 2022-10-03T19:28:14Z

Hi, @prashmo Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.

PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.

For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator

If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vscswagger@microsoft.com

openapi-pipeline-app · 2022-10-03T19:28:14Z

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️⚠️LintDiff: 87 Warnings warning [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0)	new version	base version
package-2022-09-01-preview	package-2022-09-01-preview(456df74)	default(main)

[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message	Related RPC [For API reviewers]
⚠️ R1003 - ListInOperationName	Since operation 'AzureDevOpsConnectorStatsGet' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form 'list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L328
⚠️ R1003 - ListInOperationName	Since operation 'GitHubConnectorStatsGet' response has model definition 'array', it should be of the form 'list'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L1382
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2068
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2117
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2171
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2234
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2306
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2369
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2414
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2463
⚠️ R2001 - AvoidNestedProperties	Consider using x-ms-client-flatten to provide a better end user experience Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L2507
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'AzureDevOpsConnectorStats_Get' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L323
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'GitHubConnectorStats_Get' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L1377
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnector' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L18
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnector' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L63
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnector' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L106
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnector' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L171
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnector' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L232
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsRepoModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsRepo' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L280
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsConnectorStatsModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsConnectorStats' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L328
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsOrgModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsOrg' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L372
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsOrgModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsOrg' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L420
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsOrgModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsOrg' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L466
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsOrgModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsOrg' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L534
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsProjectModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsProject' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L593
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsProjectModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsProject' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L644
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsProjectModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsProject' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L693
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsProjectModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsProject' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L764
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsRepoModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsRepo' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L826
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'AzureDevOpsRepoModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'AzureDevOpsRepo' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json#L880

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️⚠️~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

API Test is not triggered due to precheck failure. Check pipeline log for details.

️⚠️~[Staging] TrafficValidation: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

API Test is not triggered due to precheck failure. Check pipeline log for details.

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️⚠️SDK Track2 Validation: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]

The following tags are being changed in this PR

"https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/456df74a07b3d4a15a7661e34a6539c7bb33377f/specification/securitydevops/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2022-09-01-preview">securitydevops/resource-manager/readme.md#package-2022-09-01-preview

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message
⚠️ UnkownSecurityScheme	"readme":"securitydevops/resource-manager/readme.md", "tag":"package-2022-09-01-preview", "details":"Security scheme azure_auth is unknown and will not be processed. Only supported types are AADToken, AzureKey, Anonymous"

️️✔️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.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

openapi-pipeline-app · 2022-10-03T19:28:15Z

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

 Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account.

️️✔️SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Breaking Changes Tracking

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 626c946. SDK Automation 14.0.0

command	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
warn	No file changes detected after generation
warn	No package detected after generation

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-java succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from 626c946. SDK Automation 14.0.0

command	./eng/mgmt/automation/init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/initOutput.json
command	./eng/mgmt/automation/generate.py ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-java_tmp/generateOutput.json

️✔️azure-resourcemanager-securitydevops [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-js succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️✔️Succeeded [Logs]Release - Generate from 626c946. SDK Automation 14.0.0

command	sh .scripts/automation_init.sh ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initOutput.json
warn	File azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/initOutput.json not found to read
command	sh .scripts/automation_generate.sh ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/generateInput.json ../azure-sdk-for-js_tmp/generateOutput.json

️✔️@azure/arm-securitydevops [View full logs] [Release SDK Changes]
- azure-arm-securitydevops-1.0.0-beta.1.tgz
```
info	[Changelog]
error	breakingChangeTracking is enabled, but version or changelogItem is not found in output.
```

️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]

⚠️Warning [Logs]Release - Generate from 626c946. Schema Automation 14.0.0

command	.sdkauto/initScript.sh ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initInput.json ../azure-resource-manager-schemas_tmp/initOutput.json
cmderr	[initScript.sh]  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

️✔️securitydevops [View full logs] [Release Schema Changes]

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

openapi-pipeline-app · 2022-10-03T19:28:16Z

Generated ApiView

Language	Package Name	ApiView Link
Java	azure-resourcemanager-securitydevops	Create ApiView failed. Please ensure your github account in Azure/Microsoft is public and add a comment "/azp run" to re-trigger the CI.
JavaScript	@azure/arm-securitydevops	Create ApiView failed. Please ensure your github account in Azure/Microsoft is public and add a comment "/azp run" to re-trigger the CI.

openapi-workflow-bot · 2022-10-03T19:28:16Z

Hi, @prashmo your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board(armapireview@microsoft.com).

...ops/resource-manager/Microsoft.SecurityDevOps/preview/2022-09-01-preview/securitydevops.json

TimLovellSmith

🕐

openapi-workflow-bot · 2022-10-04T21:36:22Z

Please ensure to respond feedbacks from the ARM API reviewer. When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove ARMChangesRequested

prashmo · 2022-10-06T03:53:52Z

Previous ARM review sign offs:
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/pull/7849
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/pull/8717
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/pull/8917

akning-ms · 2022-10-06T12:39:12Z

based on team channel discussion, this 3 PR has been signed off by ARM in RPSaaSMaster branch. so merged it consider Ignite timeline

#2602) Create to sync Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#20977 [ReCreate this PR](https://github.com/azure-resource-manager-schemas/compare/main...azure-sdk:sdkAuto/securitydevops?expand=1)

TimLovellSmith · 2022-10-06T16:42:06Z

I'm just trying to get clarification on ProvisioningState...

* Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace. * add suppression for spell check

Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace.

6539cdb

prashmo requested review from msyyc, BigCat20196, ArcturusZhang, jsntcy and qiaozha as code owners October 3, 2022 19:28

openapi-assignment-bot bot assigned lirenhe Oct 3, 2022

openapi-workflow-bot bot added ARMReview WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Oct 3, 2022

azure-sdk mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2022

[AutoPR securitydevops] Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace. azure-sdk/azure-resource-manager-schemas#1234

Closed

AzureRestAPISpecReview added ReadyForApiTest <valid label in PR review process>add this label when swagger and service APIs are ready for test resource-manager RPaaS SuppressionReviewRequired labels Oct 3, 2022

This was referenced Oct 3, 2022

[AutoPR @azure/arm-securitydevops] Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace. azure-sdk/azure-sdk-for-js#2394

Closed

[AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-securitydevops] Publish Microsoft.SecurityDevOps namespace. azure-sdk/azure-sdk-for-java#2241

Closed