[Cognitive Services] Update endpoint URL template for Content Moderator.

[yangyuan]

Detail background and explainations in here: #3489 Cognitive Services URL template (endpoint)

Please hold for swiftarrow11 or sanjeev3's review as well as my confirmation.

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.

[yangyuan]

Remove this to keep consistency

[yangyuan]

Remove the outdated region list.

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-java#2315

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#2438

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#1963

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-ruby#1558

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

A PR has been created for you:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#3238

[jhendrixMSFT]

@yangyuan are we still waiting for other reviewers?

[azuresdkci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[yangyuan]

Hi @jhendrixMSFT. I've updated some SDKs, but heard some negative feedback (also found a small issue in auto-generated documents).
So I decide to hold this PR for a few days and collect feedbacks in case of back/forth changes.

[sanjeev3]

@yangyuan @jhendrixMSFT, I am good with these. @swiftarrow11, how about you?

[jhendrixMSFT]

There are some model validation failures that need to be addressed, please see the travis log.

[yangyuan]

hi @jhendrixMSFT, I've fixed the model validation error.

It shows that Linter Diff complaints some operations missing x-ms-examples.
How about we create an issue and deal with it later? two reasons I recommend that.

1. Its some legacy issues not related to this change.
2. The examples should be provided by Content Moderator team.

[jhendrixMSFT]

@bsiegel I understand you're working on this new linter diff in CI? I don't think it should be failing for this PR as it doesn't add any new operations.

[jhendrixMSFT]

@veronicagg do you know about this new linter behavior?

[veronicagg]

@jhendrixMSFT I asked @bsiegel about this in the morning. @bsiegel I think this is another case for the issue you fixed earlier today, in which case this branch would need to be rebased to pick up Brandon's fix. @bsiegel could you check other PRs that may be opened and got affected by it?

[yangyuan]

@jhendrixMSFT I have rebase the branch and now all passes. :)

[jhendrixMSFT]

There are some model validation failures that need to be addressed, please see the travis log.