-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
AppServicePlans.json 2022-09-01- Duplicate model name in spec #23709
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
Open
jackofallops
wants to merge
2
commits into
Azure:main
Choose a base branch
from
jackofallops:b/web-2023-09-01-serviceplans-patch
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 change of "name" on body parameter seems unnecessary, as probably only python uses the "name" (it won't affect REST API -- body is body, but it may break SDK if they indeed uses the "name" of body).
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.
@jackofallops FYI
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 makes the SDK generation non-deterministic? If this is used as is, the wrong model will be selected (without some override) in some languages SDKs (Python/Go etc). So the PATCH will use the PUT model here, so this is correcting this. This should have a unique name in this spec as it refers to a different model to the PUT, as @JeffreyRichter called out above:
Ideally, we'd not want this to refer to another model, as this doesn't match standard behaviour in this and other APIs, but if there's legitimate reason not to, we should update here for the name to be unique?
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 is a parameter name, not a model name.
The model is here (which is the correct one
AppServicePlanPatchResource?)azure-rest-api-specs/specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/stable/2022-09-01/AppServicePlans.json
Lines 286 to 288 in f0e0f76
This model will be used whatever the parameter name.
I know Java don't need this change (though it won't break as well; probably same for .NET). API signature would be
patch(String, String, ..., AppServicePlanPatchResource), parameter name would not show anywhere.Add @msyyc for Python, @tadelesh for Go.
@jackofallops If this change is intended for SDK, do talk to SDK owners. I've already added them above.
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.
@jackofallops Could you please let us know the intended SDK ? Depending on that we can tag the right SDK owners.
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.
@navba-MSFT this change is for github.com/hashicorp/go-azure-sdk (so we'd be the owners/folks to tag there, fwiw)
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.
It will not break Azure Go SDK. But it is labeled as a swagger breaking change (though I don't think it will break payload), it's better to get approval from Jeff.
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.
Here's what I think is happening: Today, there is an SDK-only method parameter named appServicePlan and there is desire to change this name to appServicePlanPatch. I'm not sure why this desire exists but the only real language it might affect is C#; not Go. And this has such a small chance of breaking .NET that we'd approve it. But I don't understand the motivation for making this change?
Do I have this right?