Swagger changes for 26 RFI connectors, each with a linkedservice, dataset and source

[Eva-Xiao]

1. each connector has a linkedservice with specific properties apply to them
2. each connector has a dataset without any property
3. each connector has a copysource with a query property.
4. app model and description is reviewed with PM

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

• The title of the PR is clear and informative.
• 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.
• 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.
• Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

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

[Eva-Xiao]

@hvermis

[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/datafactory/resource-manager/readme.md
Before the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0
After the PR: Warning(s): 0 Error(s): 0

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

[olydis]

@ravbhatnagar lots of new stuff

[ravbhatnagar]

As discussed in skype call and over email, this is signed off from ARM side.

[olydis]

@Eva-Xiao Looks good to me, see comment about descriptions. I don't treat that as blocking since:

• you seem to have strict deadlines
• the documentation "pattern" seems to be nothing new in this Swagger
• adjusting documentation later is not a breaking change

Still, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify - maybe it's a low hanging fruit to improve customer experience! 🙂

[olydis]

I see modeling things as object is common here since things can be either a value or expression. The type is often indicated in descriptions (e.g. "Type: X (or Expression with resultType X)"), I think there's great value in doing that consistently!
Maybe there is a system/consistency behind type descriptions in this Swagger that I missed 🙂

Given the example, I guess that I can pass a string here (but maybe I can also pass one of these?).
However, there are less obvious properties like accessKeyId (string? int? GUID? Will it be super obvious for customers?)

[Eva-Xiao]

Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed I found it myself when I first start making this change, all the properties are object type except for the situation where it has only limited number of values, or must be a specific type for security concern. I think this is for future extensibility that a property can be extended to an object contains more properties where service can handled it without client breaking change.

[AutorestCI]

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

[AutorestCI]

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

[AutorestCI]

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