[AzureStack] [Admin API] ACR Admin swagger spec changes

[larisaborodina]

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Changelog

Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.

1. 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
2. When you are targeting to deploy new service/feature to public regions? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
3. When you expect to publish swagger? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
4. If it's an update to existing version, please select SDKs of specific language and CLIs that require refresh after swagger is published.
   • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
   • SDK of Python
   • SDK of Java
   • SDK of Js
   • SDK of Go
   • PowerShell
   • CLI
   • Terraform
   • No, no need to refresh for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

• 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

• Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.

  • Adding new API(s)
  • Adding a new API version
  • Ensure to copy the existing version into new directory structure for first commit (including refactoring) and then push new changes including version updates in separate commits. This is required to review the changes efficiently.
  • Adding a new service

• Please 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 there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

• Removing API(s) in stable version
• Removing properties in stable version
• Removing API version(s) in stable version
• Updating API in stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
• Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.

Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi, @larisaborodina 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. vsswagger@microsoft.com

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️⚠️LintDiff: 24 Warnings warning [Detail]

• Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.8 )
  • resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md tag:package-2019-11-01-preview
• Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.0 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.8 )
  • resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md tag:default

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Only 10 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
⚠️ R1006 - PutInOperationName	'PUT' operation 'ContainerRegistryConfiguration_Put' should use method name 'Create'. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/configuration.json#L30
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ContainerRegistryCapacity_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/capacity.json#L62
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'ContainerRegistryConfiguration_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/configuration.json#L145
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'Operations_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/operations.json#L20
⚠️ R2029 - PageableOperation	Based on the response model schema, operation 'Quotas_List' might be pageable. Consider adding the x-ms-pageable extension. Location: Microsoft.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/quotas.json#L145
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ContainerRegistryCapacityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ContainerRegistryCapacity' 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.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/capacity.json#L30
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ContainerRegistryCapacityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ContainerRegistryCapacity' 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.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/capacity.json#L72
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ContainerRegistryConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ContainerRegistryConfiguration' 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.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/configuration.json#L30
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ContainerRegistryConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ContainerRegistryConfiguration' 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.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/configuration.json#L73
⚠️ R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'ContainerRegistryConfigurationModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'ContainerRegistryConfiguration' 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.ContainerRegistry.Admin/preview/2019-11-01-preview/configuration.json#L113

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️️✔️[Staging] SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• azsadmin/resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md#package-2019-11-01-preview

The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"azsadmin/resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2019-11-01-preview",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"azsadmin/resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2019-11-01-preview",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@microsoft.azure/openapi-validator' (1.8.0->1.8.0)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"azsadmin/resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2019-11-01-preview",
"details":"> Installing AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.15.456)"|
|:speech_balloon: AutorestCore/Exception|"readme":"azsadmin/resource-manager/containerregistry/readme.md",
"tag":"package-2019-11-01-preview",
"details":"> Installed AutoRest extension '@autorest/modelerfour' (4.15.456->4.15.456)"|

️️✔️[Staging] PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️[Staging] SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️[Staging] Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

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

[openapi-workflow-bot]

[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @larisaborodina, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff.

Task	How to fix	Priority	Support (Microsoft alias)
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High	ruowan
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High	raychen, jianyxi
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High	raychen,jianyxi
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high	jianyxi, ruoxuan

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback."

[openapi-workflow-bot]

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

[bganapa]

@markcowl Could you please review this again? @larisaborodina has addressed the comments

[markcowl]

One minor issue - looks like one of your fies has no definitions or paths sections, and so can just be omitted. otherwise, looks good.