add cross-tenant feature

[parkhyukjun89]

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Changelog

Add a changelog entry for this PR by answering the following questions:

1. What's the purpose of the update?
   • new service onboarding
   • new API version
   • update existing version for new feature
   • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
   • Other, please clarify
2. When are you targeting to deploy the new service/feature to public regions? Please provide the date or, if the date is not yet available, the month.
3. When do you expect to publish the swagger? Please provide date or, the the date is not yet available, the month.
4. If updating an existing version, please select the specific language SDKs and CLIs that must be refreshed after the swagger is published.
   • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
   • SDK of Python
   • SDK of Java
   • SDK of Js
   • SDK of Go
   • PowerShell
   • CLI
   • Terraform
   • No refresh required for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

• I commit to follow the Breaking Change Policy of "no breaking changes"
• I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
• Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and errors have all been fixed in this PR. How to fix?

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

Applicability: ⚠️

If your changes encompass only the following scenarios, you should SKIP this section, as these scenarios do not require ARM review.

• Change to data plane APIs
• Adding new properties
• All removals

Otherwise your PR may be subject to ARM review requirements. Complete the following:

• Check this box if any of the following apply to the PR so that label "WaitForARMFeedback" will be added automatically to begin ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays to the manifest.

  • Adding a new service
  • Adding new API(s)
  • Adding a new API version
    -[ ] To review changes efficiently, ensure you are using OpenAPIHub to initialize the PR for adding a new version. More details, refer to the wiki.

• Ensure you've reviewed following guidelines including ARM resource provider contract and REST guidelines. Estimated time (4 hours). This is required before you can request review from ARM API Review board.

• If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged with urgency, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.

Breaking Change Review Checklist

If any of the following scenarios apply to the PR, request approval from the Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

• Removing API(s) in a stable version
• Removing properties in a stable version
• Removing API version(s) in a stable version
• Updating API in a stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
• Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.

Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi, @parkhyukjun89 Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.

PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.

For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator

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?

Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vscswagger@microsoft.com

[openapi-workflow-bot]

[Call for Action] To better understand Azure service dev/test scenario, and support Azure service developer better on Swagger and REST API related tests in early phase, please help to fill in with this survey https://aka.ms/SurveyForEarlyPhase. It will take 5 to 10 minutes. If you already complete survey, please neglect this comment. Thanks.

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

• Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.12.3 , classic-openapi-validator v1.2.4 )
  • compute/resource-manager/readme.md tag:package-2022-03-02
• Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.12.3 , classic-openapi-validator v1.2.4 )
  • compute/resource-manager/readme.md tag:package-2022-03-02

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Rule	Message
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'EncryptionSetProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L378
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'EncryptionSetIdentity' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L424
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'KeyForDiskEncryptionSet' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L500
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'DiskEncryptionSet' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L516
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'DiskEncryptionSetUpdate' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L533
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'DiskEncryptionSetUpdateProperties' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L552
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'DiskEncryptionSetList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L567
❌ R4037 - MissingTypeObject	The schema 'ResourceUriList' is considered an object but without a 'type:object', please add the missing 'type:object'. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L586
⚠️ R3018 - EnumInsteadOfBoolean	Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: rotationToLatestKeyVersionEnabled Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L403
⚠️ R3018 - EnumInsteadOfBoolean	Booleans are not descriptive and make them hard to use. Consider using string enums with allowed set of values defined. Property: rotationToLatestKeyVersionEnabled Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L560
⚠️ R4021 - DescriptionAndTitleMissing	'EncryptionSetProperties' model/property lacks 'description' and 'title' property. Consider adding a 'description'/'title' element. Accurate description/title is essential for maintaining reference documentation. Location: stable/2022-03-02/DiskRP/diskEncryptionSet.json#L378

️⚠️Avocado: 1 Warnings warning [Detail]

Rule	Message
⚠️ MULTIPLE_API_VERSION	The default tag contains multiple API versions swaggers. readme: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md tag: specification/compute/resource-manager/readme.md#tag-package-2022-03-02

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️Cross-Version Breaking Changes succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• compute/resource-manager/readme.md#package-2022-03-02

️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-pipeline-app]

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️SDK Breaking Change Tracking warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-sdk-for-net failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-python-track2 warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-java warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-sdk-for-js warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️❌ azure-sdk-for-go-track2 failed [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

️⚠️ azure-resource-manager-schemas warning [Detail]

Only 0 items are rendered, please refer to log for more details.

_{Posted by Swagger Pipeline | How to fix these errors?}

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @parkhyukjun89, Your PR has some issues. Please fix the CI sequentially by following the order of Avocado, semantic validation, model validation, breaking change, lintDiff. If you have any questions, please post your questions in this channel https://aka.ms/swaggersupport.

Task	How to fix	Priority
Avocado	Fix-Avocado	High
Semantic validation	Fix-SemanticValidation-Error	High
Model validation	Fix-ModelValidation-Error	High
LintDiff	Fix-LintDiff	high

If you need further help, please feedback via swagger feedback.

[haagha]

@ArcturusZhang is the sdk track2 CI failure relevant to this PR?