Add TTL to getRelayConfiguration.

[AriZavala2]

Packages impacted by this PR

• NetworkTraversal

Issues associated with this PR

None

Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR

• Adding Ttl parameter for credential

Are there test cases added in this PR? (If not, why?)

Yes

Provide a list of related PRs (if any)

None

Command used to generate this PR:**(Applicable only to SDK release request PRs)

Checklists

• Added impacted package name to the issue description
• [] Does this PR needs any fixes in the SDK Generator?** (If so, create an Issue in the Autorest/typescript repository and link it here)
• Added a changelog (if necessary)

[azure-sdk]

API changes have been detected in @azure/communication-network-traversal. You can review API changes here

API changes

-     getRelayConfiguration(user: CommunicationUserIdentifier, routeType?: RouteType, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
+     getRelayConfiguration(ttl: number, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
+     getRelayConfiguration(routeType: RouteType, ttl?: number, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
+     getRelayConfiguration(user: CommunicationUserIdentifier, routeType?: RouteType, ttl?: number, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
+     getRelayConfiguration(user: CommunicationUserIdentifier, ttl?: number, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;

[DominikMe]

Cool feature, let's work on the API shape with optional args.

[check-enforcer]

This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer.

What is Check Enforcer?

Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass.

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged.

What should I do now?

If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows:
/check-enforcer evaluate
Typically evaulation only takes a few seconds. If you know that your pull request is not covered by a pipeline and this is expected you can override Check Enforcer using the following command:
/check-enforcer override
Note that using the override command triggers alerts so that follow-up investigations can occur (PRs still need to be approved as normal).

What if I am onboarding a new service?

Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment:
/azp run prepare-pipelines
This will run a pipeline that analyzes the source tree and creates the pipelines necessary to build and validate your pull request. Once the pipeline has been created you can trigger the pipeline using the following comment:
/azp run js - [service] - ci

[azure-sdk]

API changes have been detected in @azure/communication-network-traversal. You can review API changes here

API changes

-     getRelayConfiguration(routeType: RouteType, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
-     getRelayConfiguration(user: CommunicationUserIdentifier, routeType?: RouteType, options?: GetRelayConfigurationOptions): Promise<CommunicationRelayConfiguration>;
- export interface GetRelayConfigurationOptions extends OperationOptions { }
+ export interface GetRelayConfigurationOptions extends OperationOptions {
+     id?: string;
+     routeType?: RouteType;
+     ttl?: number;
+ }

[DominikMe]

Lgtm with comments!
+1 to Jose's comment about calling out the breaking change in the Changelog

[joheredi]

Looks good, left a couple of comments. Please address them before merging