[TSP Migration]--RedisEnterprise

[welovej]

1. Migration properties with x-ms-client-flatten is not right (Cannot flatten property of polymorphic type), so we removed @@Legacy.flattenProperty(Migration.properties)
   "Migration": {
   "type": "object",
   "description": "Describes the current migration operation on a Redis Enterprise cluster.",
   "properties": {
   "properties": {
   "$ref": "#/definitions/MigrationProperties",
   "description": "Properties of the migration operation.",
   "x-ms-client-flatten": true
   }
   }...

---

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.

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!

• New resource provider.
• New API version for an existing resource provider. (If API spec is not defined in TypeSpec, the PR should have been created in adherence to OpenAPI specs PR creation guidance).
• Update existing version for a new feature. (This is applicable only when you are revising a private preview API version.)
• Update existing version to fix OpenAPI spec quality issues in S360.
• Convert existing OpenAPI spec to TypeSpec spec (do not combine this with implementing changes for a new API version).
• Other, please clarify:
  • edit this with your clarification

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:

• I confirm this PR is modifying Azure Resource Manager (ARM) related specifications, and not data plane related specifications.
• I have reviewed following Resource Provider guidelines, including
  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.
• A release plan has been created. If not, please create one as it will help guide you through the REST API and SDK creation process.

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

• First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the Purpose of this PR and Due diligence checklist.
• If you don't have permissions to remove or add labels to the PR, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories
• To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the 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.
• For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
  and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
• For help with ARM review (PR workflow diagram Step 2), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
• If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in 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.
• If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.
• For guidance on SDK breaking change review, refer to https://aka.ms/ci-fix.

[github-actions]

Next Steps to Merge

Next steps that must be taken to merge this PR:

• ❌ This PR targets either the main branch of the public specs repo or the RPSaaSMaster branch of the private specs repo. These branches are not intended for iterative development. Therefore, you must acknowledge you understand that after this PR is merged, the APIs are considered shipped to Azure customers. Any further attempts at in-place modifications to the APIs will be subject to Azure's versioning and breaking change policies. Additionally, for control plane APIs, you must acknowledge that you are following all the best practices documented by ARM at aka.ms/armapibestpractices. If you do intend to release the APIs to your customers by merging this PR, add the PublishToCustomers label to your PR in acknowledgement of the above. Otherwise, retarget this PR onto a feature branch, i.e. with prefix release- (see aka.ms/azsdk/api-versions#release--branches).
• ❌ This PR is in purview of the ARM review (label: ARMReview). This PR must get ARMSignedOff label from an ARM reviewer.
  This PR is not ready for ARM review (label: NotReadyForARMReview). This PR will not be reviewed by ARM until relevant problems are fixed. Consult the rest of this Next Steps to Merge comment for details.
  Once the blocking problems are addressed, add to the PR a comment with contents /azp run. Automation will re-evaluate this PR and if everything looks good, it will add WaitForARMFeedback label which will put this PR on the ARM review queue.
  For details of the ARM review, see aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review
  
• ❌ This PR is NotReadyForARMReview because it has the VersioningReviewRequired label.
  
• ❌ This PR has at least one change violating Azure versioning policy (label: VersioningReviewRequired).
  To unblock this PR, either a) introduce a new API version with these changes instead of modifying an existing API version, or b) follow the process at aka.ms/brch.
• ❌ The required check named TypeSpec Validation has failed. Refer to the check in the PR's 'Checks' tab for details on how to fix it and consult the aka.ms/ci-fix guide

Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.

[github-actions]

API Change Check

APIView identified API level changes in this PR and created the following API reviews

Language	API Review for Package
Swagger	Microsoft.Cache-RedisEnterprise
TypeSpec	Microsoft.Cache
JavaScript	@azure/arm-redisenterprisecache
Python	azure-mgmt-redisenterprise

[samsaha-ms]

#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-manager/arm-resource-invalid-envelope-property" "FIXME: Update justification, follow aka.ms/tsp/conversion-fix for details"

Is there in call to action to service team for these for future iteration? if yes then what is that?

[pshao25]

Yeah, it's service team's call to fix. We cannot make decision for them.

[samsaha-ms]

Sorry, with the provided link I could not understand what is the issue here we are suppressing, could you please explain.

[welovej]

This link is a placeholder. We are going to fill in later. For this specific linter suppression, it means Property "xxx" is not valid in the resource envelope. Please remove this property, or add it to the resource-specific property bag.

Envelop property means some standard properties provided by TypeSpec ARM library. Your property doesn't fit into any standard one so that we are not using.

[samsaha-ms]

How can we test this version of swagger without merging it? Our e2e test suite is based on .NET SDK.

[samsaha-ms]

Can we fix the lintdiff error that are introduced in current PR https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/actions/runs/20049406640?

[pshao25]

@samsaha-ms SDK team will take care of .net SDK validation. lintdiff can be safely suppressed as they are all false alerts. But if you see something unexpected, please let us know. We'll do a fix.

[samsaha-ms]

@samsaha-ms SDK team will take care of .net SDK validation. lintdiff can be safely suppressed as they are all false alerts. But if you see something unexpected, please let us know. We'll do a fix.

@pshao25 Will this spec be rollout globally or it will be staged in canary first, so that we can test using the new .net sdk in our e2e test suite if any swagger s360 issues comes in? I am trying to understand what the recommended process is to apply this change safely.

[samsaha-ms]

@samsaha-ms SDK team will take care of .net SDK validation. lintdiff can be safely suppressed as they are all false alerts. But if you see something unexpected, please let us know. We'll do a fix.

@pshao25 Will this spec be rollout globally or it will be staged in canary first, so that we can test using the new .net sdk in our e2e test suite if any swagger s360 issues comes in? I am trying to understand what the recommended process is to apply this change safely.

In my eyes changes are looking good but was wondering how safely we can rollout as it is a big change in swagger.