[Microsoft.Web] Introduce api version 2026-09-01 and VirtualConnections Entity by cmriachi · Pull Request #45406 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs

cmriachi · 2026-08-11T19:41:51Z

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.

github-actions · 2026-08-11T19:42:29Z

Next Steps to Merge

Next steps that must be taken to merge this PR:

❌ Your PR has breaking changes in the generated SDK for Python (label: BreakingChange-Python-Sdk). Refer to step 3 in the PR workflow diagram.

Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.

github-actions · 2026-08-11T19:44:25Z

TypeSpec suppressions requiring review

Status: ✅ Approved — 4 suppressions

This PR adds or updates the TypeSpec suppressions listed below. Suppressions are strongly discouraged — they bypass linter rules that protect API quality and consistency. Authors should avoid adding new suppressions and prefer fixing the underlying issue; reviewers should approve only when there is a clear, compelling justification and no reasonable alternative. Review each linked rule and source location, then apply typespec-suppressions-approved only if every justification is acceptable. The Status column shows ✅ once the label is applied and ❌ while approval is pending.

New suppressions (4)

Status	Rule	Source	Justification
✅	`@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-closed-literal-union` Unions of literals should include the base scalar type to mark them as open enum.	EgressConfig.tsp#L57	The 2026-09-01 service rejects unknown egress enabled states, so this union intentionally models a closed set.
✅	`@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-manager/arm-no-record` Don't use Record types for ARM resources.	EgressConfig.tsp#L52	Connection names are arbitrary customer-chosen keys and cannot be represented as a fixed set of model properties.
✅	`@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-manager/arm-no-record` Don't use Record types for ARM resources.	EgressConfig.tsp#L85	Setting names are arbitrary customer-chosen keys and cannot be represented as a fixed set of model properties.
✅	`@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-manager/arm-resource-provisioning-state` Check for properly configured provisioningState property.	EgressConfig.tsp#L37	egress is a proxy-only sites/config singleton that is written synchronously and does not track a provisioning state, consistent with the other Microsoft.Web config singletons such as authsettingsV2.

For an overview of TypeSpec linting rules click here.
For a mapping from ARM lintdiff rules to corresponding TypeSpec linting rules click here.

💬 Have feedback on the TypeSpec suppression flow? Let us know.

github-actions · 2026-08-11T19:56:24Z

API Change Check

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

Language	API Review for Package
Swagger	Microsoft.Web-AppService
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/appservice/armappservice
JavaScript	@azure/arm-appservice
Python	azure-mgmt-web
Java	com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-appservice
C#	Azure.ResourceManager.AppService

Comment generated by After APIView workflow run.

…-virtualconnections-2026-09-01 Co-authored-by: cmriachi <104598291+cmriachi@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: cmriachi <104598291+cmriachi@users.noreply.github.com>

…6-09-01

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

…6-09-01

github-actions · 2026-10-06T23:16:41Z

ARM API Review Summary

Reviewed PR #45406 at head SHA 89fef842b92db86604c1dd3dda6aa11a3d23f0f8 | Triggered by: pull_request

Caution

Independent Critic verification did not run. The findings below are unverified. Severity is unchanged, and no ARM review labels were modified.

Scoped review: 7 of 719 changed specification/ files reviewed (PR exceeds the automated-review size cap). Not reviewed: 704 generated example files and the remaining broad generated OpenAPI/endpoint surface outside the selected high-risk TypeSpec, configuration, metadata, and 2026-09-01 OpenAPI files.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix, BreakingChange-Python-Sdk.

Category	Count
🔴 Blocking	0
🟠 Warning	0
🔵 Suggestion	0

No issues found; remaining concerns are covered by existing human-authored discussions and were not duplicated.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

github-actions

ARM API Review

Posting findings from the ARM API Reviewer agent (Critic unavailable; reviewer self-check only, 3 iterations, no findings) against commit 89fef842b92db86604c1dd3dda6aa11a3d23f0f8. All findings are reported in the summary comment.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix, BreakingChange-Python-Sdk.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

Razvan Badea (razvanbadea-msft) · 2026-10-07T07:25:04Z

Check errors from Swagger Lintdiff.

Use of additionalProperties is not allowed for properties owned by the service. The only time its ok to use it is when the properties are pass thru (user defined) and not subject to any validations. Please make this an array or provide an explanation for why you need this.

Pallavi Sah (psah434) · 2026-10-12T20:32:39Z

Please fix lintdiff

cmriachi · 2026-10-13T17:21:57Z

Pallavi Sah (@psah434) the lintdiff errors mentioned are related to old changes i did not introduce in this pr - not sure why they are detected as my changes - how do i fix that?

Mark Cowlishaw (markcowl) · 2026-10-14T20:44:29Z

+
+/** Where to resolve settings from. */
+#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-closed-literal-union" "The 2026-09-01 service rejects unknown virtual connection setting sources, so this union intentionally models a closed set."
+@added(Versions.v2026_09_01)


If this enumeration will never add new values in a new api-version, please assert that in the justification. If it might add new values in new api-versions in the future, then it should be an open literal union (meaning you should add string as one of the variants.

Mark Cowlishaw (markcowl) · 2026-10-14T20:44:44Z

+
+/** Protocol for the backend service. */
+#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-closed-literal-union" "The 2026-09-01 service rejects unsupported virtual connection protocols, so this union intentionally models a closed set."
+@added(Versions.v2026_09_01)


If this enumeration will never add new values in a new api-version, please assert that in the justification. If it might add new values in new api-versions in the future, then it should be an open literal union (meaning you should add string as one of the variants.

Mark Cowlishaw (markcowl) · 2026-10-14T20:44:55Z

+
+/** Authentication strategy for upstream connections. */
+#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-closed-literal-union" "The 2026-09-01 service rejects unsupported virtual connection authentication types, so this union intentionally models a closed set."
+@added(Versions.v2026_09_01)


If this enumeration will never add new values in a new api-version, please assert that in the justification. If it might add new values in new api-versions in the future, then it should be an open literal union (meaning you should add string as one of the variants.

Mark Cowlishaw (markcowl) · 2026-10-14T20:45:08Z

+/** The role a setting plays in a connection. */
+#suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-closed-literal-union" "The 2026-09-01 service rejects unsupported virtual connection setting roles, so this union intentionally models a closed set."
+@added(Versions.v2026_09_01)
+union VirtualConnectionSettingRole {


If this enumeration will never add new values in a new api-version, please assert that in the justification. If it might add new values in new api-versions in the future, then it should be an open literal union (meaning you should add string as one of the variants.

…6-09-01

github-actions

ARM API Review

Reviewed PR #45406 at head SHA 67493153cec1af143222d85a7f4d03c450e9a650 against base SHA a3be4b61f3eba3138075131e2669ab43e7841eaf.

Scoped review: This PR changes 719 files (+123,708/-405), exceeding the scoped-review cap. I reviewed the generated stable/2026-09-01/openapi.json, 49 representative stable/2026-09-01 examples, and the linked TypeSpec/configuration/suppression sources (EgressConfig.tsp, main.tsp, back-compatible.tsp, tspconfig.yaml, service.yaml, and readme.md). The remaining changed examples and lower-priority generated artifacts were excluded from this scoped pass.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix, BreakingChange-Python-Sdk. No Approved-Suppression or Approved-TypeSpecSuppression label was observed.

No net-new Blocking, Warning, or Suggestion findings are posted. Existing human-authored discussion already covers the current DELETE, dictionary-suppression, enum/open-union, and identityScope concerns; previously reported workflow findings were verified fixed at this SHA (ordinary singleton reads use GET, identityResourceId uses armResourceIdentifier, enum values are PascalCase, and relevant source contains no raw @extension).

Outcome: No additional ARM API issues were identified within the reviewed scope; existing human-authored findings remain unchanged.

ARM API review telemetry: scoped review; findings posted: 0 blocking, 0 warnings, 0 suggestions; critic verification attempted.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

…6-09-01

github-actions · 2026-10-15T02:18:34Z

ARM API Review Summary

Reviewed PR #45406 at head SHA 1f464980bf761f1eebed95532f109ae94abec801 | Triggered by: pull_request_target

Scoped review: 50 of 719 changed specification/ files reviewed (PR exceeds the automated-review size cap). Not reviewed: the remaining generated artifacts, examples, and lower-priority specification files outside the prioritized scope.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

Category	Count
🔴 Blocking	0
🟠 Warning	0
🔵 Suggestion	0

No net-new ARM API issues were identified within the reviewed scope. Previously reported singleton-read, TypeSpec extension, ARM resource-ID, and point-GET/suppression issues were verified fixed; existing human-authored discussions remain covered without duplicate findings.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

github-actions

ARM API Review

Reviewed PR #45406 at head SHA 1f464980bf761f1eebed95532f109ae94abec801 | Triggered by: pull_request_target

Scoped review: 50 of 719 changed specification/ files reviewed (PR exceeds the automated-review size cap). Not reviewed: the remaining generated artifacts, examples, and lower-priority specification files outside the prioritized scope.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

Category	Count
🔴 Blocking	0
🟠 Warning	0
🔵 Suggestion	0

No net-new ARM API issues were identified within the reviewed scope. Previously reported singleton-read, TypeSpec extension, ARM resource-ID, and point-GET/suppression issues were verified fixed; existing human-authored discussions remain covered without duplicate findings.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

Ravi Eda (ravimeda)

ARM API Review

Posting findings from the ARM API Reviewer agent (critic-verified, 2 iterations, converged) against commit 1f46498. See inline comments for findings 1-4.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-15T14:05:48Z

@@ -21,14 +20,14 @@ options:
    emit-lro-options: "all"
    examples-dir: "{project-root}/examples"
    xml-strategy: "none"
+    use-read-only-status-schema: true


[NEW] 🔴 Blocking [Section 2 — API Versioning / ReadonlyPropertyChanged] specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/AppService/tspconfig.yaml — line 23 — enabling use-read-only-status-schema changes published schemas in place.

Classification reasoning: This PR adds the project-wide emitter option. Against the pinned base, it changes 28 properties from writable to read-only in each of five existing API-version files—140 ReadonlyPropertyChanged errors total:

preview/2026-03-01-preview

stable/2025-03-01

stable/2025-05-01

stable/2026-03-15

stable/2026-07-15

Approval context: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix is present. Confirm that its approval covers all 140 changes produced by this option, then resolve this conversation. If it does not, obtain matching breaking-change approval or avoid rewriting the published versions.

Suggested fix: Preserve use-read-only-status-schema only if the existing approval explicitly covers this complete project-wide output change. Otherwise remove or isolate the change and use the repository breaking-change process before regenerating these five OpenAPI files.

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-15T14:05:48Z

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+  "operationId": "EgressConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfig",


[NEW] 🟠 Warning [EX-ORPHAN] / [EX-COVERAGE] specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/AppService/examples/2026-09-01/EgressConfig_CreateOrUpdate.json — line 2 — all eight site PUT examples use an operation ID that does not exist in the emitted OpenAPI.

Classification reasoning: The Egress site PUT operation and these examples are introduced in this PR; neither exists in stable/2026-07-15.

Issue: The eight EgressConfig_CreateOrUpdate*.json/EgressConfig_Disable.json files declare EgressConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfig, while the emitted operation at stable/2026-09-01/openapi.json line 10054 is WebApps_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfig. All eight source files and their generated copies are orphaned, and the PUT operation has no x-ms-examples entry.

Suggested fix: Change line 2 in all eight source examples to "operationId": "WebApps_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfig", regenerate the stable examples/OpenAPI, and verify that the PUT operation contains all intended x-ms-examples references.

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-15T14:05:48Z

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "operationId": "EgressConfigSlotConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfigSlot",


[NEW] 🟠 Warning [EX-ORPHAN] / [EX-COVERAGE] specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/AppService/examples/2026-09-01/SlotEgressConfig_CreateOrUpdate.json — line 2 — both slot PUT examples use an operation ID that does not exist in the emitted OpenAPI.

Classification reasoning: The Egress slot PUT operation and these examples are introduced in this PR; neither exists in stable/2026-07-15.

Issue: The two SlotEgressConfig_CreateOrUpdate*.json files declare EgressConfigSlotConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfigSlot, while the emitted operation at stable/2026-09-01/openapi.json line 22804 is WebApps_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfigSlot. Both source files and generated copies are orphaned, and the slot PUT operation has no x-ms-examples entry.

Suggested fix: Change line 2 in both source examples to "operationId": "WebApps_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfigSlot", regenerate, and verify that the slot PUT operation contains both x-ms-examples references.

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-15T14:05:48Z

 #suppress "@azure-tools/typespec-azure-core/no-legacy-usage" "FIXME: Update justification, follow aka.ms/tsp/conversion-fix for details"
 @@flattenProperty(SiteAuthSettingsV2.properties);

+@@clientLocation(EgressConfigs.createOrUpdateEgressConfig, WebApps, "!csharp");


[NEW] 🟠 Warning [TypeSpec Section 4.6 — Client Customizations] specification/web/resource-manager/Microsoft.Web/AppService/back-compatible.tsp — lines 2088-2099 — the four new Egress @@clientLocation customizations are placed outside client.tsp.

Classification reasoning: These customizations target the four new Egress operations and are added by this PR; the operations and decorators do not exist at the base SHA.

Issue: Section 4.6 requires client-level customizations to be placed in client.tsp and prohibits importing or using @azure-tools/typespec-client-generator-core in other files. This project already has client.tsp, but the new decorators were appended to back-compatible.tsp.

Suggested fix: Move the four Egress @@clientLocation decorators to client.tsp, remove them from back-compatible.tsp, regenerate, and revalidate the example operation IDs against the emitted OpenAPI.

…6-09-01

Remove the project-wide use-read-only-status-schema option and regenerate all six OpenAPI versions without changing property-level visibility. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 119d5772-2836-4eb4-9579-8135879d42af

Link the site and slot PUT examples to their WebApps operation IDs, move the four Egress client customizations into client.tsp, and correct the DELETE-suppression rationale to describe the supported PUT-clear contract. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 119d5772-2836-4eb4-9579-8135879d42af

…6-09-01

github-actions · 2026-10-20T05:57:55Z

ARM API Review Summary

Reviewed SHA: 9fb22e26994d7005f5f44d4f52efa4fd0de86c59 (base f1f796502a81c1cf4d44fe97109e8a71fe8ba485).

Scoped review: 8 of 714 changed files were reviewed because this PR exceeds the automated full-review threshold. Reviewed surfaces were EgressConfig.tsp, main.tsp, back-compatible.tsp, tspconfig.yaml, service.yaml, suppressions.yaml, readme.md, and the generated stable/2026-09-01/openapi.json EgressConfig paths/definitions. Remaining generated examples and lower-priority generated artifacts were not individually reviewed.

Category	Count
🔴 Blocking	0
🟠 Warning	0
🔵 Suggestion	0

No net-new ARM API issues were identified within the reviewed scope. Existing human-authored discussions already cover DELETE behavior, typed dictionaries/Record suppression, enum/open-union behavior, identityScope URI typing, nullable ValidationError.connectionName, and suppression approval; these were not duplicated, replied to, or resolved. Previously reported workflow findings for ordinary singleton POST reads, point GET coverage, identityResourceId, raw TypeSpec extensions, and stale emitter pins were verified fixed or superseded at the pinned SHA.

Critic status: Independent critic verification completed successfully, with 1 iteration and convergence. No labels were changed. Exact approval-label inventory: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix, BreakingChange-Python-Sdk; no Versioning-Approved-*, Approved-Suppression, or Approved-TypeSpecSuppression labels.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

github-actions

ARM API Review

Reviewed PR #45406 at pinned head SHA 9fb22e26994d7005f5f44d4f52efa4fd0de86c59 against base SHA f1f796502a81c1cf4d44fe97109e8a71fe8ba485.

Scoped review: 8 of 714 changed files were reviewed because the PR exceeds the automated full-review threshold. The scope covered the highest-risk TypeSpec, configuration, suppression, service metadata, and generated 2026-09-01 OpenAPI surfaces. Remaining generated examples and lower-priority generated artifacts were not individually reviewed.

No net-new Blocking, Warning, or Suggestion findings were identified in scope. Existing human-authored discussions covering DELETE behavior, typed dictionaries/Record suppression, enum/open-union behavior, identityScope URI typing, nullable connectionName, and suppression approval were not duplicated or altered. Previously reported workflow findings for singleton POST reads, point GET coverage, identityResourceId, raw TypeSpec extensions, and stale emitter pins were verified fixed or superseded at this SHA.

Critic verification: independent critic completed successfully; 1 review iteration, converged. Approval-label inventory at final metadata check: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix, BreakingChange-Python-Sdk; no Versioning-Approved-*, Approved-Suppression, or Approved-TypeSpecSuppression labels.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-20T12:04:33Z

/arm-review

github-actions · 2026-10-20T12:14:51Z

ARM API Review Summary

Reviewed PR #45406 at head SHA 9fb22e26994d7005f5f44d4f52efa4fd0de86c59 | Triggered by: issue_comment

Scoped review: 50 of 714 changed specification/ files reviewed (PR exceeds the automated-review size cap). Not reviewed: the remaining generated examples and lower-priority specification files outside the selected TypeSpec, generated OpenAPI, configuration, and highest-risk JSON subset.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

Category	Count
🔴 Blocking	0
🟠 Warning	0
🔵 Suggestion	0

No issues found in the scoped review. Existing discussions cover prior candidate concerns, and no new independently anchorable violation was identified at the pinned head.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

github-actions

ARM API Review

Posting findings from the ARM API Reviewer agent (critic-verified, 3 iterations, no new findings) against commit 9fb22e26994d7005f5f44d4f52efa4fd0de86c59. All findings are reported in the summary comment.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

🔍 ARM API review by ARM API Review: Automated Workflow

Ravi Eda (ravimeda)

ARM API Review

Posting findings from the ARM API Reviewer agent (critic-verified, 3 iterations, converged) against commit 9fb22e2. See inline comments for finding 1.

Approval labels observed: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix.

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) · 2026-10-20T13:16:11Z

@@ -100,6 +100,54 @@ directive:
      - $.paths["/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Web/sites/{name}/slots/{slot}/instances/{instanceId}/extensions/MSDeploy"]
      - $.paths["/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.Web/sites/{name}/slots/{slot}/instances/{instanceId}/extensions/MSDeploy/log"]
    reason: MSDeploy is the intentional name matching the existing service API.
+  - suppress: EvenSegmentedPathForPutOperation


[NEW] 🔵 Suggestion — RPC-SUPPRESS-SCOPE — readme.md:103, also lines 111, 119 and 132: Consider version-binding the new Egress waivers.

All four directives are in the unconditional YAML block beginning at line 42. Their precise where clauses correctly limit the affected elements, but from: openapi.json has no API-version boundary. Today these targets occur only in 2026-09-01; future packages retaining the same paths/model names would inherit the waivers. This is optional scope hardening—not a claim that earlier versions are currently affected or that global directives are categorically forbidden.

Classification reasoning: These four directives are new in this PR. The 503 existing occurrences are outside this recommendation.

Approval context: BreakingChange-Approved-BugFix is present; Approved-Suppression is absent. Breaking-change approval does not authorize these Egress suppressions or their future-version carryover. If a PR-level suppression approval is obtained, please confirm that it covers these four directives and their unconditional scope; when it does, the remaining action is to resolve this conversation. Otherwise, consider version-binding them as suggested.

Suggested fix: If retained, place only these four entries in the conditional package-2026-09 block, or use equivalent version-specific from matching. Preserve the exact JSONPaths and existing directives. Do not delete error suppressions without addressing their still-firing diagnostics.

…6-09-01

first draft of virtualconnections 2026-09-01

20e4ab2

github-actions Bot added ARMModelingAutoSignedOff resource-manager TypeSpec Authored with TypeSpec labels Aug 11, 2026

microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added the Web Apps label Aug 11, 2026

cmriachi added 2 commits August 13, 2026 13:53

change auth value from mi to managedIdentity

a5c7e8a

fix some validation errors

009752b

github-actions Bot added the SuppressionReviewRequired label Aug 13, 2026

cmriachi added 2 commits August 13, 2026 15:19

add avoidadditionalproperties directive

92c31dc

address remaining errors

5873ec9

github-actions Bot added the BreakingChange-Python-Sdk label Aug 14, 2026

cmriachi added 3 commits August 14, 2026 11:24

fix

97da8fa

fix example errors

2a8a4bc

fix tsp errors

4cfb77a

Copilot started work on behalf of cmriachi August 14, 2026 20:42

View session

Copilot AI and others added 2 commits August 14, 2026 20:47

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feature/microsoft-web…

0ac74a1

…-virtualconnections-2026-09-01 Co-authored-by: cmriachi <104598291+cmriachi@users.noreply.github.com>

Regenerate AppService swagger and service.yaml via tsp compile

272529b

Co-authored-by: cmriachi <104598291+cmriachi@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of cmriachi August 14, 2026 20:53

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

605fe07

…6-09-01

cmriachi added the PublishToCustomers Acknowledgement the changes will be published to Azure customers. label Aug 17, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

886dc25

…6-09-01

cmriachi marked this pull request as ready for review August 18, 2026 17:45

cmriachi requested review from tariq (1tariq), danielw5, jocawtho, Naveed Aziz (naveedaz) and reillyanderson as code owners August 18, 2026 17:45

cmriachi and others added 2 commits October 6, 2026 10:11

Remove obsolete egress action-path suppression

a2646b4

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Clarify typed egress dictionary suppression rationale

c518744

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

cmriachi added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed ARMChangesRequested labels Oct 6, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

89fef84

…6-09-01

github-actions Bot reviewed Oct 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Mark Cowlishaw (markcowl) approved these changes Oct 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

cmriachi and others added 2 commits October 14, 2026 14:52

make most enums open

166f5f7

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

6749315

…6-09-01

github-actions Bot reviewed Oct 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

1f46498

…6-09-01

github-actions Bot reviewed Oct 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) reviewed Oct 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

cmriachi and others added 5 commits October 16, 2026 09:40

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

10c2fa7

…6-09-01

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

4a4afd4

…6-09-01

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

9fb22e2

…6-09-01

github-actions Bot reviewed Oct 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) reviewed Oct 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into feature/microsoft-web-virtualconnections-202…

c626632

…6-09-01

		@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
		{
		"operationId": "EgressConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfig",

		@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
		{
		"operationId": "EgressConfigSlotConfigs_CreateOrUpdateEgressConfigSlot",

Conversation

cmriachi commented Aug 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Purpose of this PR

Due diligence checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Next Steps to Merge

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

TypeSpec suppressions requiring review

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

API Change Check

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

ARM API Review Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

Razvan Badea (razvanbadea-msft) commented Oct 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Pallavi Sah (psah434) commented Oct 12, 2026

Uh oh!

cmriachi commented Oct 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 15, 2026

ARM API Review Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 20, 2026

ARM API Review Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) commented Oct 20, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 20, 2026

ARM API Review Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM API Review

Uh oh!

Ravi Eda (ravimeda) left a comment

cmriachi commented Aug 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading