[AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-chaos]-generated-from-SDK Generation - Java-6292130 by azure-sdk · Pull Request #49171 · Azure/azure-sdk-for-java

azure-sdk · 2026-05-13T15:35:24Z

Configurations: 'specification/chaos/resource-manager/Microsoft.Chaos/Chaos/tspconfig.yaml', API Version: 2026-05-01-preview, SDK Release Type: beta, and CommitSHA: 'fba0ddc48535c777a154e285a0708f27c188f081' in SpecRepo: 'https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs' Pipeline run: https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=6292130 Refer to https://eng.ms/docs/products/azure-developer-experience/develop/sdk-release/sdk-release-prerequisites to prepare for SDK release. Release plan link: https://apps.powerapps.com/apps/821ab569-ae60-420d-8264-d7b5d5ef734c?release-plan-id=c532e936-dc4e-f111-bec7-000d3a5a7aa2 Submitted by: renzopretto@microsoft.com

Release Plan Details

Release Plan: https://aka.ms/sdk-release-planner?release-plan-id=c532e936-dc4e-f111-bec7-000d3a5a7aa2
Spec pull request: Fix Versions enum ordering to retain stable 2025-01-01 in KnownVersions azure-rest-api-specs#43085
Spec API version:

…/Chaos/tspconfig.yaml', API Version: 2026-05-01-preview, SDK Release Type: beta, and CommitSHA: 'fba0ddc48535c777a154e285a0708f27c188f081' in SpecRepo: 'https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs' Pipeline run: https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=6292130 Refer to https://eng.ms/docs/products/azure-developer-experience/develop/sdk-release/sdk-release-prerequisites to prepare for SDK release.

Run tsp-client update and codesnippet:update-codesnippet to regenerate the Java SDK code for the chaos service to match the latest TypeSpec definition. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Regenerated from spec commit 01b99ba99f (fix-chaos-versions-enum-ordering branch) which fixes: - Versions enum ordering so 2026-05-01-preview is the latest api-version - KeyValuePair doc comment from 'map' to 'key-value pair' Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Copilot wasn't able to review this pull request because it exceeds the maximum number of files (300). Try reducing the number of changed files and requesting a review from Copilot again.

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-14T02:27:43Z

+    /*
+     * The Location property.
+     */
+    private final String location;
+
+    /*
+     * The Retry-After property.
+     */
+    private final Integer retryAfter;


same problem as #49072 (comment)

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-14T02:28:39Z

+    /*
+     * The Location property.
+     */
+    private final String location;
+
+    /*
+     * The Retry-After property.
+     */
+    private final Integer retryAfter;


#49072 (comment)

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-14T02:29:28Z

+    /*
+     * The Location property.
+     */
+    private final String location;
+
+    /*
+     * The Retry-After property.
+     */
+    private final Integer retryAfter;


This likely just a response of GET of scenario runs. Why it also have location and retry-after?

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-14T02:48:49Z

see #49072 (comment)

I've confirmed with TypeSpec dev, @extension should never be used for LRO (that's the reason you have lots of suppress)

Also, writing a template is also not recommended. It likely causes more problem.
https://teams.microsoft.com/l/message/19:rMhMrxg7UjfwZmVoSeVvWvNQIfT_G6ds8napsytWqzw1@thread.tacv2/1778728842988?tenantId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47&groupId=39910aef-85da-4e30-b5e3-35f04ef38648&parentMessageId=1778728842988&teamName=Azure%20SDK%20Q%26A%20Bot%20Testing&channelName=Azure%20SDK%20QA%20bot%20for%20TypeSpec%20Testing&createdTime=1778728842988

If you have question how to write the proper TypeSpec for these operation (execute and cancel), please ask in https://teams.microsoft.com/l/channel/19%3A906c1efbbec54dc8949ac736633e6bdf%40thread.skype/TypeSpec%20Discussion?groupId=3e17dcb0-4257-4a30-b843-77f47f1d4121&tenantId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47

Same apply to get -- you should use template from TypeSpec.Azure.ResourceManager, instead of writing an op without template
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/chaos/resource-manager/Microsoft.Chaos/Chaos/scenarioRun.tsp#L24-L44

RenzoPrettoMS · 2026-05-14T15:56:55Z

Hey, thank you for your thorough review on our SDK PR [AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-chaos]-generated-from-SDK Generation - Java-6292130 by azure-sdk · Pu…!

I think the core issue our team is facing is that we were told that an operation endpoint can be used in lieu of the OperationResults endpoint to fulfill the polymorphic nature of these endpoints (202 + no body while non-terminal, 200 + exact resource response body when terminal). azure-resource-manager-rpc/v1.0/async-api-reference.md at master · Azure/azure-resource-manager-rpc.

"If the operation is complete, return the exact same response that would have been returned had the operation been executed synchronously."

Our GET scenarioRun effectively services as the OperationResults endpoint for this resource but with the exact same response caveat defined by the RPC.

This was discussed in our azure-rest-api-specs PR Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#41486 (comment)

"Although not following the common pattern in ARM RPC, this serves as the operation result endpoint. Most RPs don't include such endpoints in public API documentation. I can approve with exception; but will leave it to your whether you want to include this new one or not in this PR (my understanding is that you already have similar endpoints documented publicaly, so you may want to be consistent)."

We had a few other scenarios where we chose to remove the endpoint entirely, but for this resource we opted to keep it as we deemed it would be leveraged by customers in the SDK and it is a standard pattern we are support in prview. If there is a supported way to manage this pattern, then we can make the swap, but as far as I know that doesn't exist. Hence, we needed the custom operation.

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-18T01:56:45Z

@RenzoPrettoMS

The most critical part is not on the GET. It is on the LRO that uses the GET.

All the comments are not on how your REST API structure (whether it polls via URL to Azure-AsyncOperation or not) -- it is owned by ARM dev, and he approves the exception, and we have no suggestion to change.

All comments are on how you write TypeSpec.

@extension is not allowed to be used for LRO, whatever reason. If removing them generate wrong Swagger, it means your LRO operation is not written correctly in TypeSpec. Ask in the channel to start the discussion of correct way to write the op (e.g. there is https://azure.github.io/typespec-azure/docs/libraries/azure-core/reference/decorators/#@Azure.Core.useFinalStateVia)

RenzoPrettoMS · 2026-05-18T15:10:11Z

@RenzoPrettoMS

The most critical part is not on the GET. It is on the LRO that uses the GET.

All the comments are not on how your REST API structure (whether it polls via URL to Azure-AsyncOperation or not) -- it is owned by ARM dev, and he approves the exception, and we have no suggestion to change.

All comments are on how you write TypeSpec.

@extension is not allowed to be used for LRO, whatever reason. If removing them generate wrong Swagger, it means your LRO operation is not written correctly in TypeSpec. Ask in the channel to start the discussion of correct way to write the op (e.g. there is https://azure.github.io/typespec-azure/docs/libraries/azure-core/reference/decorators/#@Azure.Core.useFinalStateVia)

Got it, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification! Ill work on this then.

Addresses PR review feedback on #49171: After updating the TypeSpec source to use @useFinalStateVia instead of @extension (and removing @pollingOperation from execute/cancel), the SDK generator now correctly detects these as LRO operations: - ScenarioConfigurations.execute is now beginExecute / beginExecuteAsync returning SyncPoller<PollResult<ScenarioRunInner>, ScenarioRunInner>. - ScenarioRuns.cancel is now beginCancel / beginCancelAsync returning SyncPoller<PollResult<ScenarioRunInner>, ScenarioRunInner>. - ScenarioRuns.get now uses the standard ArmResourceRead template and returns Response<ScenarioRunInner> without the synthetic ...Headers class. ScenarioRunsGetHeaders, ScenarioRunsCancelHeaders, and ScenarioConfigurationsExecuteHeaders (and Response counterparts) are removed. Mock tests that asserted plain non-LRO behaviour for these operations are removed. The remaining ...Inner / Impl / Sample / model changes are routine fallout from regeneration with the corrected TypeSpec. Verified: mvn compile and mvn test-compile both BUILD SUCCESS. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

… polling The Location-header polling pattern (final-state-via: location) requires the polling endpoint to return 202 while the operation is in progress and 200 when it completes. The previous simplification of GET to return only 200 would have caused the LRO client to terminate polling on the first poll attempt regardless of ScenarioRunProperties.status (status is only used by the status-monitor pattern, not Location-header polling). This regenerates the SDK from the updated TypeSpec where GET returns both ArmResponse<ScenarioRun> (200) and a 202 in-progress response with Location/Retry-After headers and the current ScenarioRun body. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

weidongxu-microsoft · 2026-05-20T02:53:02Z

SDK LTGM. We need a final regen after specs PR merge.

github-actions Bot added the Mgmt This issue is related to a management-plane library. label May 13, 2026

RenzoPrettoMS mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

[AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-chaos]-generated-from-SDK Generation - Java-6258086 #49072

Closed

RenzoPrettoMS and others added 2 commits May 13, 2026 09:37

Regenerate chaos Java SDK with tsp-client update

1c4ad91

Run tsp-client update and codesnippet:update-codesnippet to regenerate the Java SDK code for the chaos service to match the latest TypeSpec definition. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

RenzoPrettoMS marked this pull request as ready for review May 13, 2026 16:46

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 13, 2026 16:46

RenzoPrettoMS requested review from a team, ArthurMa1978, XiaofeiCao, haolingdong-msft and weidongxu-microsoft as code owners May 13, 2026 16:46

Copilot AI reviewed May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

weidongxu-microsoft reviewed May 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

RenzoPrettoMS mentioned this pull request May 18, 2026

Fix TypeSpec LRO operations: remove @extension, use @useFinalStateVia Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#43308

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-chaos]-generated-from-SDK Generation - Java-6292130#49171

[AutoPR azure-resourcemanager-chaos]-generated-from-SDK Generation - Java-6292130#49171
azure-sdk wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
sdkauto/azure-resourcemanager-chaos-6292130

azure-sdk commented May 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

RenzoPrettoMS commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

RenzoPrettoMS commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

azure-sdk commented May 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Release Plan Details

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RenzoPrettoMS commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RenzoPrettoMS commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

azure-sdk commented May 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

RenzoPrettoMS commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

weidongxu-microsoft commented May 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading