TypeSpec conversion for resources/policy

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Difference in Swagger

• route /{policyAssignmentId} is not included <- it is OKed by service
  For backward compatible on SDK, they are added in "client.tsp" with @scope
• x-ms-skip-url-encoding=true on $filter query parameter is not included
  1. This is not supported in TypeSpec
  2. Arguably, it was wrong to define them as true in Swagger. User of the API is unliked to escape it before calling the API.
  3. For any SDK that contains manual code, please check whether convenience code escaped it for user.
• value of paged response changed to "required"
• Some { "type: "object" } changed to {} (due to TypeSpec unknown)
• PolicyAssignment, PolicyDefinition, PolicyDefinitionVersion, PolicySetDefinition, PolicySetDefinitionVersion now has base model ProxyResource

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.

[github-actions]

Next Steps to Merge

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

Comment generated by summarize-checks workflow run.

[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	Microsoft.Authorization
Java	com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-resources-policy
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/resources/armpolicy
JavaScript	@azure/arm-policy
Swagger	Microsoft.Authorization-policy
Python	azure-mgmt-resource-policy

[jliusan]

https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/blob/main/specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/policy/stable/2025-03-01/policyAssignments.json#L775
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr/blob/main/specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/policy/stable/2025-03-01/policyAssignments.json#L881

It is not consistent with the definition in swagger, and this cause go breaking change like - Type of AssignmentProperties.Parametershas been changed frommap[string]*ParameterValuesValueto*ParameterValues``,and there are several similar parameters changes.
Is this designed?

[weidongxu-microsoft]

I assume that

    "ParameterValues": {
      "type": "object",
      "additionalProperties": {
        "$ref": "#/definitions/ParameterValuesValue"
      },
      "description": "The parameter values for the policy rule. The keys are the parameter names."
    },

means ParameterValues is a dict of ParameterValuesValue.

Hence in TypeSpec

model ParameterValues is Record<ParameterValuesValue>;

then

  parameters?: ParameterValues;

@jliusan
Do you prefer we write it as

  parameters?: Record<ParameterValuesValue>;

(without the ParameterValues model)?

[weidongxu-microsoft]

From the Swagger, I think the current way of writing be same (that is the reason why I wrote it this way, with a ParameterValues).

Original Swagger
https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/main/specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/policy/stable/2025-03-01/policyAssignments.json#L775-L778

The Swagger generated from TypeSpec

azure-rest-api-specs/specification/resources/resource-manager/Microsoft.Authorization/policy/stable/2025-03-01/openapi.json

Lines 3531 to 3534 in c131197

	"parameters": {
	"$ref": "#/definitions/ParameterValues",
	"description": "The parameter values for the assigned policy rule. The keys are the parameter names."
	},

[jliusan]

I assume that

    "ParameterValues": {
      "type": "object",
      "additionalProperties": {
        "$ref": "#/definitions/ParameterValuesValue"
      },
      "description": "The parameter values for the policy rule. The keys are the parameter names."
    },

means ParameterValues is a dict of ParameterValuesValue.

Hence in TypeSpec

model ParameterValues is Record<ParameterValuesValue>;

then

  parameters?: ParameterValues;

@jliusan Do you prefer we write it as

  parameters?: Record<ParameterValuesValue>;

(without the ParameterValues model)?

Yes, go prefers parameters?: Record<ParameterValuesValue>;

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Changed in bc62110

SDK likely won't have break from the diff on Swagger (caused by this change). As least for Java from m4, there is no ParameterValues class generated from Swagger.

[jliusan]

/azp run SDK Validation - Go

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[jliusan]

Go has breaking change like these, and there are no ops named as these in tsp file but exist in swagger on main branch, are these funcs removed by designed ?

- Function `*AssignmentsClient.CreateByID` has been removed
- Function `*AssignmentsClient.DeleteByID` has been removed
- Function `*AssignmentsClient.GetByID` has been removed
- Function `*AssignmentsClient.UpdateByID` has been removed

[weidongxu-microsoft]

They are moved into client.tsp, because these ops are not the genuine "CRUD" on the resource model, but describing another equivalent route to it (e.g. route {endpoint}/{policyAssignmentId}). Also see PR description.

Chenjie seems fine to remove them from Go SDK.

If you'd like to have them, you can add "go" scope to these ops in client.tsp (currently it be @scope("java"))

Also note for #38509 (comment) on the get op