Added Common Types, Managed Identity v6

[almat-msft]

ARM (Control Plane) API Specification Update Pull Request

Tip

Overwhelmed by all this guidance? See the Getting help section at the bottom of this PR description.

PR review workflow diagram

Please understand this diagram before proceeding. It explains how to get your PR approved & merged.

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.
• Other, please clarify:
  • update common types v6 for ManagedIdentity

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.

Additional information

Viewing API changes

For convenient view of the API changes made by this PR, refer to the URLs provided in the table
in the Generated ApiView comment added to this PR. You can use ApiView to show API versions diff.

Suppressing failures

If one or multiple validation error/warning suppression(s) is detected in your PR, please follow the
suppressions guide to get approval.

Getting help

• First, please carefully read through this PR description, from top to bottom. Please fill out the Purpose of this PR and Due diligence checklist.
• To understand what you must do next to merge this PR, see the Next Steps to Merge comment. It will appear within few minutes of submitting this PR and will continue to be up-to-date with current PR state.
• For guidance on fixing this PR CI check failures, see the hyperlinks provided in given failure
  and https://aka.ms/ci-fix.
• For help with ARM review (PR workflow diagram Step 2), see https://aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review.
• If the PR CI checks appear to be stuck in queued state, please add a comment with contents /azp run.
  This should result in a new comment denoting a PR validation pipeline has started and the checks should be updated after few minutes.
• If the help provided by the previous points is not enough, post to https://aka.ms/azsdk/support/specreview-channel and link to this PR.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. This comment will be populated with next steps to merge this PR once validation is completed. Please wait ⌛.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

Compared specs (v0.10.9)	new version	base version
managedidentity.json	6.0(27da251)	6.0(main)
types.json	6.0(27da251)	6.0(main)

️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️️✔️LintDiff succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for LintDiff.

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️❌SwaggerAPIView: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]

Rule	Message
❌ Failed to generate swagger APIView. The readme file format is invalid and the tag is not defined. Use the provided readme template for guidance readme template. For more details, please check the detail log.	"How to fix":"Check the readme file and make sure the readme file format is valid and the tag is defined. Use the provided readme template"

️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Summary.

️⌛Automated merging requirements met pending [Detail]

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

 Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account. 

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

PR validation pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment.

[TimLovellSmith]

@almat-msft What is a summary of the changes? #Resolved

[almat-msft]

@almat-msft What is a summary of the changes?

@TimLovellSmith This change removes the obsolete Identity definition from types.json and replaces it with the existing, good definition managedidentity.json

This is intended to remove noise from our common types and align with the long term ManagedIdentity contracts.
Other RPs should follow suit and use managedidentity.json definition.

We need this change so that we can ingest it in our DesktopVirtualization RP that uses these common types

[TimLovellSmith]

I see that there's a change to remove x-nullable as true from the userAssignedIdentities definition, compared to v5.
This would be a breaking change, why make it?

    "UserAssignedIdentities": {
      "title": "User-Assigned Identities",
      "description": "The set of user assigned identities associated with the resource. The userAssignedIdentities dictionary keys will be ARM resource ids in the form: '/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/resourceGroups/{resourceGroupName}/providers/Microsoft.ManagedIdentity/userAssignedIdentities/{identityName}. The dictionary values can be empty objects ({}) in requests.",
      "type": "object",
      "additionalProperties": {
        "$ref": "#/definitions/UserAssignedIdentity"
      }
    },

[almat-msft]

What will the impact be - will it flatten away some types in the SDKs??

In reply to: 2071905748

It shouldn't cause changes in the behavior of the sdk when it comes to UserAssignedIdentities - at least that was my understanding from @allenjzhang

[maririos]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 5 pipeline(s).

[gary-x-li]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 5 pipeline(s).

[rkmanda]

[gary-x-li]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 5 pipeline(s).