-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
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
Release SplitIO.Experimentation api spec from private repo RPSaaSMaster branch #28725
Release SplitIO.Experimentation api spec from private repo RPSaaSMaster branch #28725
Conversation
Next Steps to Merge✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge. |
Swagger Validation Report
|
Compared specs (v2.2.0) | new version | base version |
---|---|---|
package-2024-03-01-preview | package-2024-03-01-preview(33bb9f3) | default(main) |
[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:
Rule | Message | Related RPC [For API reviewers] |
---|---|---|
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: SplitIO.Experimentation/preview/2024-03-01-preview/splitio.json#L742 |
||
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: SplitIO.Experimentation/preview/2024-03-01-preview/splitio.json#L765 |
️️✔️
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
|
Generated ApiView
|
Hi, @hahahahahaiyiwen, our workflow has detected that there is no management SDK ever released for your RP, to further process SDK onboard for your RP, you should have the SDK client library name of your RP reviewed and approved. Impact: SDK release owner will take the approved management client library name to release SDK. No client library name approval will leads to SDK release delayed. |
SDK name review issue opened, link: Azure/azure-sdk#7440 |
"description": "List the operations for the provider", | ||
"parameters": [ | ||
{ | ||
"$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v3/types.json#/parameters/ApiVersionParameter" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to use v5
"Succeeded", | ||
"Failed", | ||
"Canceled" | ||
], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This provisioningState is returned when the PUT/PATCH call is made too.
Don't we need a starting/intermediate state in those responses , before eventually responding with the terminal state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to include more states.
"properties": { | ||
"properties": { | ||
"$ref": "#/definitions/ExperimentationWorkspaceProperties", | ||
"description": "The resource-specific properties for this resource.", |
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.
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.
This description is not controlled by us. It get auto-generated based on TypeSpec when using model ExperimentationWorkspace is TrackedResource<ExperimentationWorkspaceProperties>
"minLength": 5, | ||
"maxLength": 50, | ||
"pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9](?!.*--)[a-zA-Z0-9-]*[a-zA-Z0-9]$" | ||
} |
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.
define a common parameter and refer that wherever needed.
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.
This spec is TypeSpec generated, and I didn't find a way to define a common name parameter. There will be a TypeSpec compile error if resource name is not decorated by pattern.
"description": "The id of the Split.IO data plane authentication application.", | ||
"required": true, | ||
"type": "string" | ||
}, |
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.
Any Pattern, minLength, maxLength that could be added here ?
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.
I think it's consistent with current API implementation.
Please address or respond to feedback from the ARM API reviewer. |
…-api-specs into release-splitio-SplitIO.Experimentation-2024-03-01-preview
"value": "Created", | ||
"description": "Created" | ||
}, | ||
{ |
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.
Do you need a Deleted state or is that covered in Succeeded?
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.
The RP is behind Rpaas and will be deleted once delete async operation completes, so we don't have deleted state.
- suppress: PathResourceProviderNamePascalCase | ||
from: splitio.json | ||
reason: This is a specific resource provider name requested by liftr partner. | ||
- suppress: PatchBodyParametersSchema |
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.
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.
ok, will do
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.
I tried to include "where" in suppression in different ways but checks error cannot be resolved in those cases. I think it's because what's flagged ("Sku" name is a required property and "ManagedServiceIdentity" type is a required property) is in common-type files. Is there a way suppression can point to common-type files?
…-api-specs into release-splitio-SplitIO.Experimentation-2024-03-01-preview
/pr RequestMerge |
@ramoka178 want to mark this PR approved based on your review or does it need further review? |
ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request
Tip
Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the
Getting help
section 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!
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:
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
Purpose of this PR
andDue diligence checklist
.Next Steps to Merge
comment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state.and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
queued
state, please add a comment with contents/azp run
.This should result in a new comment denoting a
PR validation pipeline
has started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.Private repo link
Link of private repo RPSaaSMaster branch spec: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/tree/RPSaaSMaster/specification/splitio