Update WebApps.json

[mkarmark]

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 langauge 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, @mkarmark 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. [email protected]

[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: 1 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]

• Compared Swaggers (Based on Oad v0.9.1)
  • current:stable/2021-03-01/WebApps.json compared with base:stable/2021-03-01/WebApps.json

Rule	Message
❌ 1039 - AddedOperation	The new version is adding an operation that was not found in the old version. New: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/WebApps.json#L9779:7

️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

• Linted configuring files (Based on source branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
  • web/resource-manager/readme.md tag:package-2021-03
• Linted configuring files (Based on target branch, openapi-validator v1.10.1 , classic-openapi-validator v1.1.10 )
  • web/resource-manager/readme.md tag:package-2021-03

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Only 30 items are listed, please refer to log for more details.

Rule	Message
❌ R4019 - GetCollectionResponseSchema	The response in the GET collection operation 'AppServicePlans_ListVnets' does not match the response definition in the individual GET operation 'AppServicePlans_GetVnetFromServerFarm' . Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/AppServicePlans.json#L884
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'DeletedWebApps' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/DeletedWebApps.json#L106
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L281
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L334
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L954
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Diagnostics' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Diagnostics.json#L1014
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L102
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L405
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'Recommendations' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/Recommendations.json#L712
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L118
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L161
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L206
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L267
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L313
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L375
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L432
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L488
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L558
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L608
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L660
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L718
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L781
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L844
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L901
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L955
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1009
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1066
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1125
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1206
⚠️ R1001 - OperationIdNounVerb	Per the Noun_Verb convention for Operation Ids, the noun 'StaticSites' should not appear after the underscore. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: Microsoft.Web/stable/2021-03-01/StaticSites.json#L1267

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️~[Staging] ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️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.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• web/resource-manager/readme.md#package-2021-03

️️✔️PrettierCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for PrettierCheck.

️️✔️SpellCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SpellCheck.

️️✔️Lint(RPaaS) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Lint(RPaaS).

_{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 failed [Detail]

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

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

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-go succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

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

️️✔️ azure-sdk-for-go-track2 succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

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-resource-manager-schemas inProgress [Detail]

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

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @mkarmark, 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.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

NewApiVersionRequired reason:

A service’s API is a contract with customers and is represented by using the api-version query parameter. Changes such as adding an optional property to a request/response or introducing a new operation is a change to the service’s contract and therefore requires a new api-version value. This is critically important for documentation, client libraries, and customer support.

EXAMPLE: if a customer calls a service in the public cloud using api-version=2020-07-27, the new property or operation may exist but if they call the service in a government cloud, air-gapped cloud, or Azure Stack Hub cloud using the same api-version, the property or operation may not exist. Because there is no clear relationship between the service api-version and the new property/operation, customers can’t trust the documentation and Azure customer have difficulty helping customers diagnose issues. In addition, each client library version documents the service version it supports. When an optional property or new operation is added to a service and its Swagger, new client libraries must be produced to expose this functionality to customers. Without updating the api-version, it is unclear to customers which version of a client library supports these new features.

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi, @mkarmark your PR are labelled with WaitForARMFeedback. A notification email will be sent out shortly afterwards to notify ARM review board([email protected]).

[mentat9]

@mkarmark, this is adding a new API to an existing API version, which is a breaking change. You need to do this in a new API version or get approval in a breaking change review. I've added the label for breaking change review. Instructions for how to proceed are in the comments. Also, please be sure to carefully fill out the submission form so your PR is routed and processed correctly. The purpose should be "update existing version for new feature".

[openapi-workflow-bot]

Hi @mkarmark, 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 to request breaking change review and approval before proceeding swagger PR review.
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.
If you want to know the production traffic statistic, please see ARM Traffic statistic.
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.

[Hamster-Huey]

@pilor current RP Manifest on call

Hi Chris, was hoping we could get an exception for this breaking change. The issue seems to be we are adding a new operation to an existing API version. Reading the breaking change doc:

"It is highly recommended that you use a new api-version when adding a new path/operation or new optional input query parameters, headers, or fields. However, it is possible to add any of these to an existing api-version if all data centers/regions running the service support the new functionality before the change is documented to customers. This typically means that the service is available only in the Azure public cloud and not on Azure Stack Hub or other sovereign clouds."

This new api (GET /config/authsettingsv2) is already available across our different cloud offerings (public, national, etc). So this would not introduce any disparity, rather just reflect the current state of our APIs. Alongside that, this change itself is to add

GET /sites/slots/config/AuthSettingsv2

A "slot" is a parallel resource to a "site" resource that already has support for

GET /sites/slots/config/authsettingsv2

as added in this PR:

#16506
af9fffd

Thoughts?

[pilor]

I am not involved in the breaking change exception process. The process is outlined in the PR description which links to this wiki: https://dev.azure.com/msazure/AzureWiki/_wiki/wikis/AzureWiki.wiki/37684/Breaking-Changes

[Hamster-Huey]

@jorgecotillo (current ARM review on call) could you give this PR another look, breaking change has been approved now