[Automated][azure-resource-manager] Incremental ARM documentation review (2026-08-10) - #9
Draft
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Incremental documentation review of
@azure-tools/typespec-azure-resource-managercovering the 17 source commits since the last doc-update run (through43e80a6).Findings
After building the package and running
pnpm regen-docs, the auto-generated reference docs (data-types.md,decorators.md,interfaces.md,linter.md,index.mdx) produced no diff — they already match the current.tspdoc comments and rule definitions. The narrative getting-started and how-to guides also required no changes:@featureFiles/@featureFile/@featureFileOptionsdecorators (new) are intentionally discouraged — thearm-feature-file-usage-discouragerule warns against them ("limited to brownfield services migration and requires explicit approval"). They are surfaced only through the auto-generated decorator reference; no narrative content was added.Azure.ResourceManager.BaseTypes.Agents,Agent<>/AgentConversation<>/AgentResponse<>) is experimental (basetypes-experimentaldiagnostic). Per the doc guidelines, no getting-started/how-to content is added for experimental features. The associated rules (arm-agent-base-type-child-resources,arm-agent-base-type-lifecycle-operations) document the required shape via theirdocsfield, already reflected inreference/linter.md.Extension.ServiceGroupbuilt-in scope and the linter-ruledocs-field migration were already reflected in committed docs within the reviewed range.Changes
eng/scripts/doc-updater/knowledge/azure-resource-manager.md) with lessons for future runs: feature-file decorators are discouraged, the Agent base type is experimental, rule docs now live in the packagedocsfield (no standalone website rule pages),regen-docsis the source of truth for reference docs, and theExtension.ServiceGroupscope.43e80a6.No reference or narrative documentation edits were necessary this run.