Skip to content

Conversation

kseager
Copy link
Contributor

@kseager kseager commented Sep 26, 2025

Data 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.

spec_pr_review_workflow_diagram

API Info: The Basics

Most of the information about your service should be captured in the issue that serves as your API Spec engagement record.

  • Link to API Spec engagement record issue:

Is this review for (select one):

  • a private preview
  • a public preview
  • GA release

note for the last API

Change Scope

This section will help us focus on the specific parts of your API that are new or have been modified.
Please share a link to the design document for the new APIs, a link to the previous API Spec document (if applicable), and the root paths that have been updated.

  • Design Document:
  • Previous API Spec Doc:
  • Updated paths:

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
Swagger-Suppression-Process
to get approval.

Release planner

A release plan should have been created. If not, please create one as it will help guide you through the REST API and SDK creation process.

❔Got questions? Need additional info?? We are here to help!

Contact us!

The Azure API Review Board is dedicated to helping you create amazing APIs. You can read about our mission and learn more about our process on our wiki.

Click here for links to tools, specs, guidelines & other good stuff

Tooling

Guidelines & Specifications

Helpful Links

Getting help

  • First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 26, 2025

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 github-actions bot added data-plane TypeSpec Authored with TypeSpec labels Sep 26, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 26, 2025

API Change Check

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

Language API Review for Package
TypeSpec Azure.AI.Projects
Java com.azure:azure-ai-projects

@kseager kseager force-pushed the observability/oai-sync-api branch from f090db3 to bfc7ec8 Compare October 1, 2025 20:29
@kseager kseager marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2025 21:43
@kseager
Copy link
Contributor Author

kseager commented Oct 2, 2025

wait for BYOD

context?: string;

/** Optional list of tools or resources utilized during the evaluation or generation of the response. */
tools?: string[];

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we really need this?
I mean if we will support tools then probably

  • it will not be string[]
  • we need to add ToolDefinitions
  • ToolCalls
    each with complex object, I mean not a string

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes its expected from copilot

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we make tools: {}[]? Agent tools will be objects.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then we need to align on the schema of that object, ideally it would align with the toolcall passed to EvaluationEngine https://msdata.visualstudio.com/Vienna/_git/vienna?path=/src/azureml-api/src/RAISvc/Contracts/AgentsV2/Messages/Content/ToolCallContent.cs

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kseager kseager Oct 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for this one because anything related to Agents is highly variable - can we leave this one as object and internally you assume the contract you pointed to?

context?: string;

/** Optional list of tools or resources utilized during the evaluation or generation of the response. */
tools?: string[];

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then we need to align on the schema of that object, ideally it would align with the toolcall passed to EvaluationEngine https://msdata.visualstudio.com/Vienna/_git/vienna?path=/src/azureml-api/src/RAISvc/Contracts/AgentsV2/Messages/Content/ToolCallContent.cs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
data-plane TypeSpec Authored with TypeSpec
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants