Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

sarangan12
Copy link
Contributor

Packages impacted by this PR

@azure/eventgrid

Issues associated with this PR

#28210

Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

3 of the events were missed to be exported. This PR is to export the missing events

What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR chosen?

No special design considerations

Are there test cases added in this PR? (If not, why?)

No

Provide a list of related PRs (if any)

None

Checklists

  • Added impacted package name to the issue description
  • Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** (If so, create an Issue in the Autorest/typescript repository and link it here)
  • Added a changelog (if necessary)

@xirzec Please review and approve the PR.

@azure-sdk
Copy link
Collaborator

azure-sdk commented May 31, 2024

API change check

API changes are not detected in this pull request.

@sarangan12 sarangan12 merged commit 58e7c37 into Azure:main Jun 3, 2024
sarangan12 added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
### Packages impacted by this PR

@azure/eventgrid

### Issues associated with this PR

NA

### Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

This PR consists of the following changes:

- A new field `accessTier` is added to the `StorageBlobCreatedEventData`
object.
- Two new fields `accessTier` & `previousTier` are added to the
StorageBlobTierChangedEventData object.
- The properties `api`, `blobType`, `clientRequestId`, `contentLength`,
`contentOffset`, `contentType`, `eTag`, `identity`, `requestId`,
`sequencer`, `storageDiagnostics` & `url` in
`StorageBlobCreatedEventData` have been made optional.
- The properties `api`, `blobType`, `clientRequestId`, `contentLength`,
`contentType`,`identity`, `requestId`, `sequencer`, `storageDiagnostics`
& `url` in `StorageBlobTierChangedEventData` have been made optional.

### What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If
there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR
chosen?
There are no specific/complex design scenarios for this task. It is a
straightforward regenerate and some standard changes to the custom layer
of the code.

### Are there test cases added in this PR? _(If not, why?)_
No. This item is standard and we need not add test cases for every new
events. The existing cases would be sufficient.

### Provide a list of related PRs _(if any)_
- #28176 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.1.0 release)
- #28513 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.2.0 release)
- #28891 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.3.0 release)
- #29035 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.4.0 release)
- #29872 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.5.0 release)

### Command used to generate this PR:**_(Applicable only to SDK release
request PRs)_
```autorest --typescript swagger\README.md```


### Checklists
- [X] Added impacted package name to the issue description
- [ ] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** _(If so, create an Issue in the [Autorest/typescript](https://github.com/Azure/autorest.typescript) repository and link it here)_
- [X] Added a changelog (if necessary)

---------

Co-authored-by: Jeremy Meng <[email protected]>
sarangan12 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2024
### Packages impacted by this PR

@azure/eventgrid

### Issues associated with this PR

NA

### Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

This PR consists of the following changes:

- A new property `tierToColdSummary` is added to the
`StorageLifecyclePolicyCompletedEventData` interface.

### What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If
there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR
chosen?

There are no specific/complex design scenarios for this task. It is a
straightforward regenerate and some standard changes to the custom layer
of the code.

### Are there test cases added in this PR? _(If not, why?)_
No. This item is standard and we need not add test cases for every new
events. The existing cases would be sufficient.

### Provide a list of related PRs _(if any)_
- #28176 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.1.0 release)
- #28513 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.2.0 release)
- #28891 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.3.0 release)
- #29035 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.4.0 release)
- #29872 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.5.0 release)
- #30811 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.6.0 release)

### Command used to generate this PR:**_(Applicable only to SDK release
request PRs)_
```autorest --typescript swagger\README.md```

### Checklists
- [X] Added impacted package name to the issue description
- [ ] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** _(If so, create an Issue in the [Autorest/typescript](https://github.com/Azure/autorest.typescript) repository and link it here)_
- [X] Added a changelog (if necessary)
sarangan12 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
### Packages impacted by this PR

@azure/eventgrid

### Issues associated with this PR

NA

### Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

This PR consists of the following changes:

- A new property `onBehalfOfCallee` is added to the
`AcsIncomingCallEventData` interface.
- The property `serializedName` has been removed from
`MediaJobOutputProgressEventData` & `MediaJobScheduledEventData` models.

### What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If
there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR
chosen?

There are no specific/complex design scenarios for this task. It is a
straightforward regenerate and some standard changes to the custom layer
of the code.

### Are there test cases added in this PR? _(If not, why?)_

No. This item is standard and we need not add test cases for every new
events. The existing cases would be sufficient.

### Provide a list of related PRs _(if any)_

- #28513 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.2.0 release)
- #28891 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.3.0 release)
- #29035 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.4.0 release)
- #29872 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.5.0 release)
- #30811 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.6.0 release)
- #31186 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.7.0 release)

### Command used to generate this PR:**_(Applicable only to SDK release
request PRs)_
```autorest --typescript swagger\README.md```

### Checklists
- [X] Added impacted package name to the issue description
- [ ] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** _(If so, create an Issue in the [Autorest/typescript](https://github.com/Azure/autorest.typescript) repository and link it here)_
- [X] Added a changelog (if necessary)
sarangan12 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2024
### Packages impacted by this PR

@Azure/eventgrid

### Issues associated with this PR

NA

### Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

This PR consists of the following changes:

- Added new System Events:
-
`Microsoft.ResourceNotifications.ContainerServiceEventResources.ScheduledEventEmitted`
- A new property `policyRunSummary` has been added to
`StorageLifecyclePolicyCompletedEventData` interface.
- New properties `StorageLifecycleCompletionStatus` and
`KnownStorageLifecycleCompletionStatus` have been added.


### What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If
there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR
chosen?

There are no specific/complex design scenarios for this task. It is a
straightforward regenerate and some standard changes to the custom layer
of the code.

### Are there test cases added in this PR? _(If not, why?)_

No. This item is standard and we need not add test cases for every new
events. The existing cases would be sufficient.

### Provide a list of related PRs _(if any)_
- #28176 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.1.0 release)
- #28513 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.2.0 release)
- #28891 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.3.0 release)
- #29035 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.4.0 release)
- #29872 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.5.0 release)
- #30811 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.6.0 release)

### Command used to generate this PR:**_(Applicable only to SDK release
request PRs)_
```autorest --typescript swagger\README.md```

### Checklists
- [X] Added impacted package name to the issue description
- [ ] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** _(If so, create an Issue in the [Autorest/typescript](https://github.com/Azure/autorest.typescript) repository and link it here)_
- [X] Added a changelog (if necessary)
sarangan12 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2025
### Packages impacted by this PR

`@azure/eventgrid`

### Issues associated with this PR

Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#32004

### Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

This PR consists of the following changes:
- Added `internetMessageId` property to
`AcsEmailDeliveryReportReceivedEventData`.
- Added `recipientMailServerHostName` property to
`AcsEmailDeliveryReportStatusDetails`.
- For `AcsSmsReceivedEventData`:
  - Added `segmentCount` property
  - Made `message` & `receivedTimestamp` properties optional.

### What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If
there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR
chosen?

There are no specific/complex design scenarios for this task. It is a
straightforward regenerate and some standard changes to the custom layer
of the code.

### Are there test cases added in this PR? _(If not, why?)_

No. This item is standard and we need not add test cases for every new
events. The existing cases would be sufficient.

### Provide a list of related PRs _(if any)_

- #28176 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.1.0 release)
- #28513 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.2.0 release)
- #28891 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.3.0 release)
- #29035 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.4.0 release)
- #29872 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.5.0 release)
- #30811 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.6.0 release)
- #32011 (This is the PR
that adds similar events to the SDK in the 5.9.0 release)

### Command used to generate this PR:**_(Applicable only to SDK release
request PRs)_
```autorest --typescript swagger\README.md```

### Checklists
- [X] Added impacted package name to the issue description
- [ ] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** _(If so, create an Issue in the [Autorest/typescript](https://github.com/Azure/autorest.typescript) repository and link it here)_
- [X] Added a changelog (if necessary)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants