Azure · xiangyan99 · Jan 5, 2021 · Dec 21, 2020 · Dec 21, 2020 · Dec 21, 2020
diff --git a/.azure-pipelines-preproduction/package-lock.json b/.azure-pipelines-preproduction/package-lock.json
diff --git a/.azure-pipelines-preproduction/package.json b/.azure-pipelines-preproduction/package.json
diff --git a/.github/comment.yml b/.github/comment.yml
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@
 - rule:
     type: label
     label: BreakingChangeReviewRequired
-    onLabeledComments: "Hi @${PRAuthor}, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow [breaking change policy](https://aka.ms/AzBreakingChangesPolicy) to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. </br>**Action**: To initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the [template for breaking changes](https://aka.ms/Breakingchangetemplate). Addition details on the process and office hours are on the [Breaking change Wiki](https://dev.azure.com/msazure/AzureWiki/_wiki/wikis/AzureWiki.wiki/37684/Breaking-Changes).</br> If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ma/swaggerfeedback."
+    variables:
+        openapiHub: https://portal.azure-devex-tools.com
+    onLabeledComments: "Hi @${PRAuthor}, one or multiple breaking change(s) is detected in your PR. Please check out the breaking change(s), and provide business justification in the PR comment and @ PR assignee why you must have these change(s), and how external customer impact can be mitigated. Please ensure to follow [breaking change policy](https://aka.ms/AzBreakingChangesPolicy) to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review. </br>**Action**: To initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the [template for breaking changes](https://aka.ms/Breakingchangetemplate). Addition details on the process and office hours are on the [Breaking change Wiki](https://dev.azure.com/msazure/AzureWiki/_wiki/wikis/AzureWiki.wiki/37684/Breaking-Changes).</br> If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see [ARM Traffic statistic](${openapiHub}/api/pr/query-traffic?pr=${owner}/${repo}/${PRNumber}&days=5). </br> If you think it is false positive breaking change, please provide the reasons in the PR comment, report to Swagger Tooling Team via https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback."
 
 - rule:
     type: label
@@ -31,12 +33,19 @@
 - rule:
     type: label
     label: CI-FixRequiredOnFailure
-    onLabeledComments: "Hi @${PRAuthor}, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of `Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff`.  <table><tr><th>Task</th><th>How to fix</th><th>Priority</th><th>Support</th></tr><tr><td>Avocado</td><td>[Fix-Avocado](https://github.com/Azure/avocado)</td><td>High</td><td>ruowan@microsoft.com</td></tr><tr><td>LintDiff</td><td>[Fix-LintDiff](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#linter-validation)</td><td>high</td><td>Jianye.Xi@microsoft.com, ruoxuan@microsoft.com</td></tr><tr><td>Semantic validation</td><td>[Fix-SenmanticValidation-Error](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#semantic-validation)</td><td>High</td><td>raychen@microsoft.com, Jianye.xi@microsoft.com</td></tr><tr><td>Model validation</td><td>[Fix-ModelValidation-Error](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#model-validation)</td><td>High</td><td>raychen@microsoft.com,Jianye.xi@microsoft.com</td></tr></table> If you need further help, please feedback via [swagger feedback](https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback)." 
+    onLabeledComments: >- 
+      Hi @${PRAuthor}, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of `Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff`. 
+      <table><tr><th>Task</th><th>How to fix</th><th>Priority</th><th>Support (Microsoft alias)</th></tr>
+      <tr><td>Avocado</td><td>[Fix-Avocado](https://github.com/Azure/avocado)</td><td>High</td><td>ruowan</td></tr>
+      <tr><td>Semantic validation</td><td>[Fix-SemanticValidation-Error](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#semantic-validation)</td><td>High</td><td>raychen, jianyxi</td></tr>
+      <tr><td>Model validation</td><td>[Fix-ModelValidation-Error](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#model-validation)</td><td>High</td><td>raychen,jianyxi</td></tr>
+      <tr><td>LintDiff</td><td>[Fix-LintDiff](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md#linter-validation)</td><td>high</td><td>jianyxi, ruoxuan</td></tr></table> 
+      If you need further help, please feedback via [swagger feedback](https://aka.ms/swaggerfeedback)." 
 
 - rule:
     type: PROpen
     variables:
-      openapiHub: https://openapihub.test.azure-devex-tools.com/
+      openapiHub: https://portal.azure-devex-tools.com
     keywords:
       - "I have reviewed the [documentation](https://aka.ms/ameonboard) for the workflow."
     onOpenedComments: "Hi, @${PRAuthor} Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips. </br> <li> Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.</li> <li> PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging. </li>   <li> For specs comparison cross API versions,  Use [API Specs Comparison Report Generator](${openapiHub}/tools/diff?pr=${owner}/${repo}/${PRNumber})</li>  <li> If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. [How to fix?](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/ci-fix.md)</li></br> Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com"

diff --git a/.github/pull_request_assignment.yml b/.github/pull_request_assignment.yml
@@ -144,6 +144,12 @@
       - "specification/testbase/**"
     reviewers:
       - PhoenixHe-msft
+
+- rule:
+    paths:
+      - "specification/servicelinker/**"
+    reviewers:
+      - PhoenixHe-msft
 
 - rule:
     paths:

diff --git a/custom-words.txt b/custom-words.txt
@@ -1063,6 +1063,7 @@ MSAZR
 MSAZRDE
 MSAZRUSGO
 MSCONCAT
+mscv
 MSGETACLSTATUS
 MSGETFILESTATUS
 msix
@@ -1233,6 +1234,7 @@ paramref
 PARAVIRTUAL
 partnertopic
 Passthrough
+passwd
 patternanyentities
 patternrule
 patternrules
@@ -1259,6 +1261,7 @@ Phonetik
 phplogging
 phraselist
 phraselists
+Pids
 pipelineruns
 PITR
 pixelated
@@ -1415,6 +1418,8 @@ remediate
 remediated
 Remediations
 remoteloginsettings
+remoterendering
+remoterenderingvm
 remoteuser
 REMOVEACL
 REMOVEACLENTRIES
@@ -1699,6 +1704,7 @@ subfolders
 subinquireditemcount
 sublist
 sublists
+submount
 subnames
 subnet
 subnet's
@@ -1722,6 +1728,7 @@ subword
 subwords
 sudoer
 suggesters
+suid
 Superfresh
 superset
 supportedimages

diff --git a/documentation/Semantic-and-Model-Violations-Reference.md b/documentation/Semantic-and-Model-Violations-Reference.md
@@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 | [INVALID_RESPONSE_CODE](#INVALID_RESPONSE_CODE) | |
 | [INVALID_RESPONSE_BODY](#INVALID_RESPONSE_BODY) | |
 | [MISSING_REQUIRED_PARAMETER](#MISSING_REQUIRED_PARAMETER) | |
-| [KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED](#KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED) | |
 | [READONLY_PROPERTY_NOT_ALLOWED_IN_REQUEST](#READONLY_PROPERTY_NOT_ALLOWED_IN_REQUEST) | |
 | [SCHEMA_VALIDATION_FAILED](#SCHEMA_VALIDATION_FAILED) | |
+| [SECRET_PROPERTY](#SECRET_PROPERTY) |  |
 | [DISCRIMINATOR_VALUE_NOT_FOUND](#DISCRIMINATOR_VALUE_NOT_FOUND) |  |
 | [DISCRIMINATOR_NOT_REQUIRED](#DISCRIMINATOR_NOT_REQUIRED) | [OAV131](#DISCRIMINATOR_NOT_REQUIRED) |
 | [RESPONSE_BODY_NOT_IN_EXAMPLE](#RESPONSE_BODY_NOT_IN_EXAMPLE) | [OAV130](#RESPONSE_BODY_NOT_IN_EXAMPLE) |
@@ -359,14 +359,6 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 
 **How to fix the violation**: The error info has the position of swagger, look for the position in swagger and fix the value type of keyword.
 
-### <a name="KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED" />KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED
-
-**Output Message**: Keyword '{0}' is expected to be of type '{1}'.
-
-**Description**: The value of the keyword in swagger should be the specific type.
-
-**How to fix the violation**: Fix the value type of keyword.
-
 ### <a name="PATTERN" />PATTERN
 
 **Output Message**: String does not match pattern {0}: {1}.
@@ -547,9 +539,9 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 
 **Output Message**: This operation does not have a defined {0} response code.
 
-**Description**: There's extra response code defined in example file.
+**Description**: The specified response code is not defined in example file.
 
-**How to fix the violation**: Remove extra response code definition in example or correct it.
+**How to fix the violation**: Add response code to default, or add response code definition in the swagger.
 
 ### <a name="INVALID_RESPONSE_BODY" />INVALID_RESPONSE_BODY
 
@@ -559,15 +551,6 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 
 **How to fix the violation**: Add response body.
 
-
-### <a name="KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED" />KEYWORD_TYPE_EXPECTED 
-
-**Output Message**: Keyword 'type' is expected to be of type 'array,boolean,integer,number,null,object,string'.
-
-**Description**: According to Json schema spec, the allowed value for [type](http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.1.1) is 'array,boolean,integer,number,null,object,string'.
-
-**How to fix the violation**: Set the value of type to one of the values above.
-
 ### <a name="OBJECT_ADDITIONAL_PROPERTIES" />OBJECT_ADDITIONAL_PROPERTIES 
 
 **Output Message**: Additional properties not allowed:{0}.
@@ -801,6 +784,14 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 
 **How to fix the violation**: Remove this definition if it's not used.
 
+### <a name="SECRET_PROPERTY" />SECRET_PROPERTY 
+
+**Output Message**: Secret property {0} cannot be sent in the response.
+
+**Description**: The secret is not allowed to return in response when it's annotated with x-ms-secret:true.
+
+**How to fix the violation**: Remove this secret value from the response.
+
 
 ### <a name="ROUNDTRIP_INCONSISTENT_PROPERTY" />ROUNDTRIP_INCONSISTENT_PROPERTY
 
@@ -826,4 +817,4 @@ This document lists the set of automated rules that can be validated against swa
 
 **Description**: The property was not in the PUT request, but it is returned in the subsequent GET response. This implies that the property is read-only or has a default value.
 
-**How to fix the violation**: If the property is a read-only, update the swagger definition for this property to mark it as "readOnly": true. Alternatively, keep the property in the GET schema but remove it from the PUT schema. If the property has a default value, update the Swagger definition for this property to mark it with "default": <default value> annotation.
+**How to fix the violation**: If the property is a read-only, update the swagger definition for this property to mark it as "readOnly": true. Alternatively, keep the property in the GET schema but remove it from the PUT schema. If the property has a default value, update the Swagger definition for this property to mark it with "default": <default value> annotation.