Users/tejasma/2025 09 01 #36629
Users/tejasma/2025 09 01 #36629
Conversation
Copied the files in a separate commit. This allows reviewers to easily diff subsequent changes against the previous spec.
Updated the API version from stable/2025-07-15 to stable/2025-09-01.
|
This comment is a remnant of a now-deprecated bot framework. It is being left behind only to point at the new comment that is updated by our new actions-based framework. |
|
PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
brownfield
API Change CheckAPIView identified API level changes in this PR and created the following API reviews
|
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
PipelineBotTrigger
and removed
PipelineBotTrigger
labels
tejasm-microsoft
added
PublishToCustomers
openapi-pipeline-app
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
| "type": "Microsoft.Quota/groupQuotas/locationSettings", | ||
| "name": "eastus", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "enforcementEnabled": "Enabled", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll need to add the enforcedGroupName here right? #Resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the body for the 201 response should also have these properties as well right?
"properties": {
"enforcedGroupName": "groupquota1-eastus",
"provisioningState": "InProgress"
}
Here's what the 201 response currently looks like:
| "id": "/providers/Microsoft.Management/managementGroups/E7EC67B3-7657-4966-BFFC-41EFD36BAA09/providers/Microsoft.Quota/groupQuotas/groupquota1/resourceProviders/Microsoft.Compute/locationSettings/eastus", | ||
| "type": "Microsoft.Quota/groupQuotas/locationSettings", | ||
| "name": "eastus", | ||
| "properties": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll need the enforcedGroupName here as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, all properties supplied in the initial PUT request, and any readonly properties, should appear in the 201 response if possible, as well as the 200
Next Steps to Merge✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run. |
github-actions
bot
added
BreakingChangeReviewRequired
github-actions
bot
added
the
WaitForARMFeedback
tejasm-microsoft
force-pushed
the
users/tejasma/2025-09-01
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9f8c1ff to
c4c4995
Compare
...ft.Quota/stable/2025-09-01/examples/GroupQuotasSubscriptions/PutGroupQuotasSubscription.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
TimLovellSmith
added
ARMChangesRequested
ARMSignedOff
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we fix the 'allOf' inheritance to the simpler way, in case that helps the linter?
"GroupQuotasEnforcementStatus": {
"type": "object",
"description": "The GroupQuota Enforcement status for a Azure Location/Region.",
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "../../../../../common-types/resource-management/v5/types.json#/definitions/ProxyResource"
}
],
"properties": {
"properties": {
| "type": "string", | ||
| "description": "Resource name for a given resource provider. For example:\r\n- SKU name for Microsoft.Compute\r\n- SKU or TotalLowPriorityCores for Microsoft.MachineLearningServices\r\n For Microsoft.Network PublicIPAddresses.", | ||
| "x-ms-parameter-location": "method" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
linter would like us to add 'pattern' validation regex
| "$ref": "#/parameters/ScopeInPath" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "responses": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
linter seems to care about parameter ordering?
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "$ref": "#/parameters/ScopeInPath" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
linter seems to care about parameter ordering?
| "description": "The resource name.", | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "readOnly": true | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we inherit "allOf" ProxyResource instead of redeclaring all the resource properties?
| "properties": { | ||
| "description": "Additional properties for the specific resource provider.", | ||
| "type": "object" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you have quota.properties.properties?? that's weird
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is it untyped object?
| "QuotaProperties": { | ||
| "description": "Quota properties for the specified resource.", | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "properties": { |
| "$ref": "#/definitions/CurrentQuotaLimitBase" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "202": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should ideally add header declarations like 'Location' to match your service behavior
"202": {
"description": "Request Accepted",
"headers": {
"Retry-After": {
"description": "The recommended number of seconds to wait before calling the URI specified in Azure-AsyncOperation.",
"type": "integer",
"format": "int64"
},
"Location": {
"description": "URL for determining when an operation has completed. Send a GET request to the URL in Location header.\nThe URI should return a 202 until the operation reaches a terminal state and 200 once it reaches a terminal state.\n\nFor more info: [https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/Addendum.md#202-accepted-and-location-headers](https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/Addendum.md#202-accepted-and-location-headers)",
"type": "string"
},
"Azure-AsyncOperation": {
"description": "URL for checking the ongoing status of the operation.\nTo get the status of the asynchronous operation, send a GET request to the URL in Azure-AsyncOperation header value.\n\nFor more info: [https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/Addendum.md#asynchronous-operations](https://github.com/Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc/blob/master/v1.0/Addendum.md#asynchronous-operations)",
"type": "string"
}
}
ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request
Tip
Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the
Getting helpsection at the bottom of this PR description.PR review workflow diagram
Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.
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 ApiViewcomment 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 PRandDue diligence checklist.write accessper aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositoriesNext Steps to Mergecomment. 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.
queuedstate, please add a comment with contents/azp run.This should result in a new comment denoting a
PR validation pipelinehas started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.