Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove AvoidNestedProperties rule #638

Open
lmazuel opened this issue Dec 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Remove AvoidNestedProperties rule #638

lmazuel opened this issue Dec 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@lmazuel
Copy link
Member

lmazuel commented Dec 14, 2023

It has been discussed in archboard on 12/11, that the SDK team wants to stop supporting model flattening in SDK.

It used to be a pattern we suggested in the past, and therefore we have this rule "AvoidNestedProperties" that could complain if x-ms-client-flatten is not used in some scenarios.

This issue is about removing the rule, since this is in contradiction with new guidance to not use it.

Ideally, we get this rule by 1/5/2024, as TypeSpec will released an update to the Swagger generator to stop using x-ms-client-flatten, and with this rule on every TypeSpec issue will trigger the linter.

@mikeharder
Copy link
Member

mikeharder commented Dec 14, 2023

@AkhilaIlla: Would you be able to remove this rule and push a new release by 1/5/24?

I beleive the rule was added in #384.

@rkmanda
Copy link
Member

rkmanda commented Jun 5, 2024

This rule is not owned by the ARM team. We dont really have an opinion on client flattening as thats an SDK construct. So, whoever on the SDK team owns the SDK related linter rules can feel free to remove these rules. If you cant find an owner, we can add this to our backlog to help cleanup. Please let us know.

@mikeharder mikeharder assigned mikeharder and unassigned AkhilaIlla Jun 5, 2024
@mikeharder
Copy link
Member

@rkmanda: Thanks for clarifying, Azure SDK will take ownership of this rule, for both design and implementation.

I noticed this rule is in the "common" ruleset, which is used by both ARM and data-plane:

For rules in this "common" ruleset, I propose we assign primary ownership based on which team (ARM or Azure SDK) made the last meaningful change to the rule source code, based on git blame.

@rkmanda, @konrad-jamrozik: Agreed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: 📋 Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants