Azure .NET Mgmt SDK PR Review

Review Azure SDK for .NET management library pull requests against the official API review guidelines.

The review is split into three sequential phases: Phase 1: Versioning Review (gate), Phase 2: API Review, and Phase 3: Breaking Change Detection. Each phase must pass before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Versioning Review

This phase checks version-related rules that are simple and rule-based. If any violation is found in this phase, stop the review immediately, submit the review with "Request Changes", and do not proceed to Phase 2.

Instructions

• Check the .csproj file and CHANGELOG.md for the rules below.

• If all versioning rules pass, proceed to Phase 2.

• If any rule is violated, record inline review comments on the violations (with file path and line number), submit the review as "Request Changes" with a summary explaining the versioning violations, and stop — do not proceed to Phase 2.

Versioning Rules

• No major version bump. Management SDK packages follow a unified versioning strategy. No individual package is allowed to bump its major version unless a major version bump decision has been explicitly made by the .NET architects for all mgmt packages. If a PR bumps the major version (e.g., from 1.x to 2.0.0 ), flag as Critical: "You must not bump the major version without the .NET architects' explicit requirement."

• Do not remove ApiCompatVersion . If a PR removes the ApiCompatVersion property from the .csproj file, flag as Critical. This property enforces API compatibility checks against the last stable release and must not be deleted. Removing it would allow breaking changes to slip through undetected.

• No newly added content in ApiCompatBaseline.txt . If the PR adds new entries to the ApiCompatBaseline.txt file (which suppresses ApiCompat errors), flag as Critical. Suppressing API compatibility errors hides breaking changes from customers. The correct approach is to mitigate breaking changes through customization code, not to baseline them away.

Phase 2: API Review

This phase reviews the API surface for naming conventions, type correctness, and adherence to design guidelines. It runs only after Phase 1 passes.

Scope of Review

The review should focus only on new or changed API surface compared to the RP's latest released stable version. Types, properties, and methods that were already shipped in a prior stable release cannot be changed and should not be flagged.

To determine the review scope:

• Find the RP's latest released stable version. Check the ApiCompatVersion property in the package's .csproj file — since Phase 1 passed, this property is guaranteed to be present if it existed before. If ApiCompatVersion is not present, assume there is no prior stable version — the entire API surface is in scope for review and no breaking changes are possible.

• If ApiCompatVersion is present, retrieve that version's API surface file from the corresponding git tag (tag format: <PackageName>_<Version> , e.g., Azure.ResourceManager.Foo_1.0.0 ). The API file is at sdk/<service>/<PackageName>/api/<PackageName>.net10.0.cs (or earlier TFM variants like netstandard2.0.cs ).

• Diff the released API surface against the PR's API surface file.

• Only review types, properties, methods, and enums that appear in the diff (i.e., newly added or modified). Anything unchanged from the stable release is out of scope.

Instructions

• Determine review scope per the "Scope of Review" section above.

• Examine API surface files (api/*.cs) for public API, focusing on new/changed surface.

• Check Generated models and resources in src/Generated/.

• Review TypeSpec customizations (e.g., client.tsp , tspconfig.yaml ).

• For each issue found, record the exact file path, line number, and comment body to include as an inline review comment.

API Review Checklist

Naming - Avoid These Suffixes

Suffix Replace With Exception

Parameter(s) Content/Patch

Request Content

Options Config Unless ClientOptions

Response Result

Data

Unless derives from ResourceData/TrackedResourceData

Definition

Unless removing it creates conflict with another resource

Operation Data or Info Unless derives from Operation

Collection Group/List Unless domain-specific (e.g., MongoDBCollection)

Resource Naming

• Remove "Resource" suffix if remaining noun is still descriptive (e.g., VirtualMachine not VirtualMachineResource)

• Keep "Resource" if removing makes it non-descriptive (e.g., GenericResource stays)

• For models: append "Data" suffix if inherits ResourceData/TrackedResourceData, otherwise "Info"

Operation Body Parameters

• PATCH operation body: Must be named [Model]Patch

• PUT/POST operation body: Must be named [Model]Content or [Model]Data

Property Naming

• Boolean properties: Must start with verb prefix: Is , Can , Has

• DateTimeOffset properties: Should end with On (e.g., CreatedOn , StartOn , EndOn )

• Interval/Duration (integer): Include units in name (e.g., MonitoringIntervalInSeconds )

• TTL properties: Rename to TimeToLiveIn<Unit>

Acronyms

• Use PascalCase (capitalize first letter only): Aes , Tcp , Http

• 2-letter acronyms: uppercase if standalone (IO ), except Id , Vm

• Expand acronyms if not clearly explained in first page of search results with context

Contextual Naming for Types

• All types must have a name that includes sufficient context about what the type represents.

• Avoid generic or ambiguous names that could apply to many different services. The type name should make it clear which service or resource it belongs to.

• Bad examples: PublicNetworkAccess , EncryptionStatus , PrivateEndpointConnection — these names lack context; a reader cannot tell which service they belong to without looking at the namespace.

• Good examples: StorageAccountPublicNetworkAccess , CosmosDBEncryptionStatus , KeyVaultPrivateEndpointConnection — these names include the service or resource context.

• Exception: If the type is scoped within a clearly named parent model or the namespace already provides unambiguous context (e.g., a property type used exclusively by one resource), a shorter name may be acceptable.

Naming Fix Recommendations

When flagging a naming issue, the recommended fix depends on whether the type is explicitly defined in the service's TypeSpec.

• Type is defined in the service's TypeSpec: Recommend adding a @@clientName decorator in client.tsp .

• Example: @@clientName(PublicNetworkAccess, "DurableTaskPublicNetworkAccess", "csharp");

• Type is NOT defined in the service's TypeSpec: @@clientName cannot be used. Instead, recommend SDK-side custom code — create a customization file (e.g., src/Customize/Models/<NewName>.cs ) using [CodeGenType("OriginalGeneratedName")] to rename the type.

• Example: [CodeGenType("OptionalPropertiesUpdateableProperties")] on a class named DurableTaskPrivateEndpointConnectionPatchProperties .

To determine whether a type is defined in the service's TypeSpec, search all .tsp files under the spec folder for a model , union , or enum declaration with the same name.

Enums

• Use singular type name (not plural) unless bit flags

• Numeric version enums should use underscore: Tls1_0 , Ver5_6

Type Formatting

The following table applies to the generated C# API surface (public types/properties in api/*.cs ).

Property Pattern Expected Type

Ends with Id /Guid with UUID value Guid

Ends with Id with ARM resource ID ResourceIdentifier

Named ResourceType or ends with Type for resource types ResourceType

Named etag

ETag

Contains location /locations

Consider AzureLocation

Contains size

Consider int /long instead of string

For TypeSpec, UUID-valued properties should use the uuid scalar and map to Guid in the generated .NET SDK.

Duration/Interval Format

• ISO 8601 duration (P1DT2H59M59S): use duration scalar in TypeSpec

• ISO 8601 constant (2.2:59:59.5000000): use @encode(DurationConstant) in TypeSpec

CheckNameAvailability Operation

• Method: Check[Resource/RP name]NameAvailability

• Parameter/Response model: [Resource/RP name]NameAvailabilityXXX

• Unavailable reason enum: [Resource/RP name]NameUnavailableReason

Method Renaming in SDK Migration

• When a previously shipped method name changes during SDK migration, prefer to rename the newly generated API back to the previously shipped name rather than keeping both names.

• Do not keep both the old and new method names just because generation produced a different name. Carrying both methods forward unnecessarily expands the public API surface and creates confusion.

• Only replace the old name with a new one when the old name is clearly wrong and the rename is intentional. In that case, treat the old member as a backward compatibility shim and make sure the review explicitly calls out why the old name is a mistake.

• A common compatibility smell is custom code that adds the old API method name back, but its implementation only forwards to the newly renamed method. That pattern usually means the change is name-only, and the generated method should be renamed back to the previously shipped API name instead of keeping both.

Other API Rules

• PUT/PATCH optional body parameters should be changed to required

• Discriminator models should make base model abstract

• Remove all ListOperations methods (SDK exposes operations via public APIs)

Phase 3: Breaking Change Detection

This phase runs after Phase 2. If ApiCompatVersion is present in the .csproj (i.e., a prior stable version exists), check for breaking changes by building the project. The ApiCompat tooling will report breaking changes as build errors automatically.

Instructions

• Build the project using dotnet build (or the appropriate build command for the package).

• Inspect the build output for ApiCompat errors — these indicate breaking changes against the last stable version (removals, signature changes, etc.).

• If the build succeeds with no ApiCompat errors, this phase passes.

• If ApiCompat errors are found:

• For each error, record an inline review comment listing the breaking change (what was removed or changed), targeting the relevant file and line.

• Do not attempt to fix or mitigate the breaking changes yourself. Instead, list all detected breaking changes and ask the user to mitigate them. Mitigation options include customization code via partial classes and generator features (e.g., rename-mapping , custom properties, shim methods) to preserve backward compatibility. The mitigate-breaking-changes skill can be invoked to assist with this.

• Submit the review as "Request Changes" with the list of breaking changes that need mitigation.

If ApiCompatVersion is not present in the .csproj , skip this phase — there is no prior stable version to compare against.

Output Format

Submit a single pull request review with all findings as inline comments attached to the relevant file and line. Do not post findings as general PR comments.

How to submit the review

• Collect all review findings across all phases. For each finding, record:

• file path (relative to repo root)

• line number (in the PR diff, use the last line of the relevant range)

• comment body (the review feedback)

• Submit one pull request review that includes all findings as inline review comments. Use the gh CLI: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pull_number}/reviews
  --method POST
  --header "Accept: application/vnd.github+json"
  --input - << 'EOF' { "event": "REQUEST_CHANGES", "body": "<overall summary>", "comments": [ { "path": "<file>", "line": <line>, "side": "RIGHT", "body": "<comment>" } ] } EOF

• Use event: "REQUEST_CHANGES" if any phase fails or there are blocking issues that must be resolved before merge.

• Use event: "APPROVE" if all phases pass and there are no issues requiring changes.

• Use event: "COMMENT" if all phases pass and there are only non-blocking/minor suggestions.

Review content

• Report Phase 1 (Versioning) result: pass or fail with details.

• If Phase 1 fails, submit the review as "Request Changes" and stop.

• If Phase 1 passes, include Phase 2 (API Review) results:

• Summarize what passes review in the review body.

• Each issue becomes an inline comment on the relevant file and line.

• If ApiCompatVersion exists, include Phase 3 (Breaking Change Detection) results:

• Build the project and check for ApiCompat errors.

• Each breaking change becomes an inline comment on the relevant file and line.

• The review body should contain a final summary of all phases and the total number of inline comments added.