Migrate Bicep service to TypeSpec

[anthony-c-martin]

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.
• Convert existing OpenAPI spec to TypeSpec spec (do not combine this with implementing changes for a new API version).
• Other, please clarify:
  • edit this with your clarification

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.
• A release plan has been created. If not, please create one as it will help guide you through the REST API and SDK creation process.

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.
• If you don't have permissions to remove or add labels to the PR, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories
• 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.
• For guidance on SDK breaking change review, refer to https://aka.ms/ci-fix.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Next Steps to Merge

✅ All automated merging requirements have been met! To get your PR merged, see aka.ms/azsdk/specreview/merge.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

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

[github-actions]

API Change Check

APIView identified API level changes in this PR and created the following API reviews

Language	API Review for Package
TypeSpec	BicepClient
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/resources/armbicep
JavaScript	@azure/arm-resourcesbicep
Python	azure-mgmt-resources-bicep
Swagger	Microsoft.Authorization-bicep
Java	com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-resources-bicep

[qiaozha]

@mikeharder do you know why it didn't report error of the folder structure? as the swagger is folder structure v2 but the typespec is using v1.

[mikeharder]

This is technically still v1. Before v2, there were existing specs in main, with the TSP outside data-plane/resource-manager, but the swagger under resource-manager happened to already follow v2.

In v1, any folder structure for the swagger was allowed. The only requirement, was that the TSP sources had to be directly under the org-name (not under DP/RM).

The only thing that determines if a spec is v1 or v2, is whether the TSP sources are under DP/RM (or not):

azure-rest-api-specs/eng/tools/typespec-validation/src/rules/folder-structure.ts

Lines 24 to 27 in 9bf0bec

	// If the folder containing TypeSpec sources is under "data-plane" or "resource-manager", the spec
	// must be using "folder structure v2". Otherwise, it must be using v1.
	const structureVersion =
	relativePath.includes("data-plane") || relativePath.includes("resource-manager") ? 2 : 1;

[qiaozha]

Is it possible to determine if a spec is v1 or v2 based on the inner most readme.md that typespec-autorest output file would refer to?
In this case, the typespec-autorest output-file is
specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Resources/bicep/stable/2023-11-01/bicepClient.json
And the inner most readme.md file is
specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Resources/bicep/readme.md
which means this is a v2 folder structure. Therefore, the typespec should also follow the v2 folder structure.

[mikeharder]

I do not think you can use this as a heuristic, because there are existing v1 specs with readme.md at all levels of the folder structure:

$ find specification -type f -name 'readme.md' | grep resource-manager | grep -v r
esource-manager/readme.md

specification/kubernetesconfiguration/resource-manager/Microsoft.KubernetesConfiguration/extensionTypes/readme.md

specification/monitor/resource-manager/Microsoft.Insights/PrivateLinkScopes/readme.md

specification/monitor/resource-manager/Microsoft.Monitor/Operations/readme.md

specification/monitor/resource-manager/Microsoft.Monitor/PipelineGroups/readme.md

[qiaozha]

Actually, the list you mentioned are all real v2 folder structure for the new split services.
Kubernetesconfiguration has split into multiple services a long time ago, the only reason they have readme.md under resource-manager folder is that they have some apis need to be deprecated, that's why Jeffrey suggests them to keep those file where they are, no need to split new services for them.
For the monitor services PipelineGroups and Operations, they have migrated to typespec https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/tree/main/specification/monitor
For the PrivateLinkScopes, service team themself has mentioned that they want to move off PrivateLinkScopes as an independent service.

[mikeharder]

If you believe something should change in the TypeSpecValidation v2 folder structure rule, please open an issue or a PR for the change, and assign to me.

[qiaozha]

issue created https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/10975, thanks