Break apart policy swagger specs

[pilor]

Breaking apart the policy swagger specs so that resourceTypes with different api-versions can easily be included in the same generated code. This change also introduces examples for policyAssignment operations.

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

• [ x] The title of the PR is clear and informative.
• [ x] There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
• [ x] Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
• If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
• [ x] Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

• [x ] I have read the contribution guidelines.
• [ x] My spec meets the review criteria:
  • [ x] The spec conforms to the Swagger 2.0 specification.
  • [ x] The spec follows the guidelines described in the Swagger checklist document.
  • [ x] Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.

[msftclas]

@pilor,
Thanks for your contribution as a Microsoft full-time employee or intern. You do not need to sign a CLA.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

[olydis]

@pilor this PR does more than just move stuff. Was this intended? At first glance, there seem to be some significant changes mixed into moving stuff from A to B - that's very complicated to review reliably. Could you please split these changes into multiple (appropriately named) PRs?

[pilor]

@olydis, its only splitting and resolving a few validation warnings/errors (readOnly name property and new example files). The diff is more complex than it could be because I let git choose what file to base the "mv" command off of instead of explicitly specifying it. I'll push a new change that should make it more clear

[pilor]

@olydis, nevermind this isn't actually fixable. Git doesn't care whether you use mv or manually rename, the diffs are based off of similarity between files. The diffs you are seeing in here are diffing between the 2016-12-01 policy.json and the new 2017-06-01-preview split out policyAssignments.json (and vice versa). If you looked at the diffs in the same api-version folder they would be much cleaner

[olydis]

Thanks, the commits indeed make reviewing easier!
But what about notScopes and metadata of PolicyAssignmentProperties and PolicySku? These I see removed in the 2016-12-01 Swagger and don't see any replacement.

[AutorestCI]

No modification for AutorestCI/azure-sdk-for-node

[AutorestCI]

No modification for AutorestCI/azure-sdk-for-python

[AutorestCI]

Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#982

[azuresdkciprbot]

Hi There,

I am the AutoRest Linter Azure bot. I am here to help. My task is to analyze the situation from the AutoRest linter perspective. Please review the below analysis result:

File: specification/resources/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 28 Error(s): 56
After the PR: Warning(s): 32 Error(s): 56

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues

Send feedback and make AutoRest Linter Azure Bot smarter day by day!

Thanks for your co-operation.

[azuresdkciprbot]

Hi There,

I am the AutoRest Linter Azure bot. I am here to help. My task is to analyze the situation from the AutoRest linter perspective. Please review the below analysis result:

File: specification/resources/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 28 Error(s): 56
After the PR: Warning(s): 32 Error(s): 56

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues

Send feedback and make AutoRest Linter Azure Bot smarter day by day!

Thanks for your co-operation.

[azuresdkciprbot]

Hi There,

I am the AutoRest Linter Azure bot. I am here to help. My task is to analyze the situation from the AutoRest linter perspective. Please review the below analysis result:

File: specification/resources/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 28 Error(s): 56
After the PR: Warning(s): 32 Error(s): 56

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues

Send feedback and make AutoRest Linter Azure Bot smarter day by day!

Thanks for your co-operation.