Skip to content

Conversation

CarlOchs
Copy link
Member

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.

spec_pr_review_workflow_diagram

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.

@CarlOchs CarlOchs added the NotReadyForReview <valid label in PR review process>It is in draft for swagger or not swagger PR label Sep 29, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 29, 2025

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).


Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.

@github-actions github-actions bot added brownfield Brownfield services will soon be required to convert to TypeSpec. See https://aka.ms/azsdk/typespec. ARMReview resource-manager WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 29, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 29, 2025

API Change Check

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

Language API Review for Package
Swagger Microsoft.CognitiveServices
Go sdk/resourcemanager/cognitiveservices/armcognitiveservices
Java com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-cognitiveservices
JavaScript @azure/arm-cognitiveservices

fmabroukmsft and others added 3 commits September 29, 2025 17:56
* Copy files from preview/2025-07-01-preview

Copied the files in a separate commit.
This allows reviewers to easily diff subsequent changes against the previous spec.

* Update version to preview/2025-10-01-preview

Updated the API version from preview/2025-07-01-preview to preview/2025-10-01-preview.

* Added tag for 2025-10-01-preview in readme file

* Add NMS v2 to cogsvc swagger.

* Update parameter casing.

* Update api versions in examples.

* Update NMS parameter properties

* Copy over pre-approved suppressions from previous API version.

* Add suppressions for NMS v2 swagger additions.

* Remove unneeded properties, add provision route

* Update accountNameParameter casing.

* Update api version in swagger to 2025-10-01-preview.

* Consistent naming for package tag in readme.

* Prettier gate formatting fix.

* Retrigger pipelines

* Add summary for outbound rule operation.

---------

Co-authored-by: Mike Harder <[email protected]>
@fmabroukmsft fmabroukmsft removed the NotReadyForReview <valid label in PR review process>It is in draft for swagger or not swagger PR label Sep 30, 2025
* Add agentic application to cog services swagger.

* Address pipelines.

* Fix spellcheck pipeline.
@ravimeda
Copy link

      "202": {

Though some RPs use 202, the recommendation is to 201 for long-running PUTs.


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:81 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

@ravimeda
Copy link

ravimeda commented Sep 30, 2025

  "delete": {

Curious if you support synchronous delete? If so, include a 200 (OK) response. #Closed


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:6047 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

@ravimeda
Copy link

ravimeda commented Sep 30, 2025

  "delete": {

Similar to the other comment - do you want to support sync delete? #Closed


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:5302 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

@ravimeda
Copy link

ravimeda commented Sep 30, 2025

    "summary": "The GET API for retrieveing a single outbound rule of the managed network associated with the cognitive services account.",

Typo #Closed


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:5370 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

@ravimeda
Copy link

ravimeda commented Sep 30, 2025

        "$ref": "./examples/ManagedNetwork/deleteRuleV2.json"

I do not see this folder yet. Please push the changes. #Closed


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:5362 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

@ravimeda
Copy link

ravimeda commented Sep 30, 2025

    "x-ms-long-running-operation": true,

Long-running PUT must support 201 (Created). #Closed


Refers to: specification/cognitiveservices/resource-manager/Microsoft.CognitiveServices/preview/2025-10-01-preview/cognitiveservices.json:5815 in 719a515. [](commit_id = 719a515, deletion_comment = False)

Copy link

@ravimeda ravimeda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🕐

@ravimeda ravimeda added ARMChangesRequested and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Sep 30, 2025
* Update LRO from 202 to 201, update examples.

* Fix delete response codes

* Fix checks
* Synchronous delete and typo fix

* Update for synchronous deletion

* Synchronous delete update
Copy link

@ravimeda ravimeda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

@ravimeda ravimeda added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed ARMChangesRequested labels Sep 30, 2025
* Move from accounts to projects

* Update readme suppression path
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMReview ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review brownfield Brownfield services will soon be required to convert to TypeSpec. See https://aka.ms/azsdk/typespec. Cognitive Services new-api-version resource-manager SuppressionReviewRequired
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants