Update applications based on newest changes

[fmabroukmsft]

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:
  • Modify existing API version PR

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

Next steps that must be taken to merge this PR:

• ❌ This PR is in purview of the ARM review (label: ARMReview). This PR must get ARMSignedOff label from an ARM reviewer.
  This PR has ARMChangesRequested label. Please address or respond to feedback from the ARM API reviewer.
  When you are ready to continue the ARM API review, please remove the ARMChangesRequested label.
  Automation should then add WaitForARMFeedback label.
  ❗If you don't have permissions to remove the label, request write access per aka.ms/azsdk/access#request-access-to-rest-api-or-sdk-repositories.
  For details of the ARM review, see aka.ms/azsdk/pr-arm-review
  

Important checks have failed. As of today they are not blocking this PR, but in near future they may.
Addressing the following failures is highly recommended:

• ⚠️ The check named Swagger LintDiff has failed. Refer to the check in the PR's 'Checks' tab for details on how to fix it and consult the aka.ms/ci-fix guide

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
Go	sdk/resourcemanager/cognitiveservices/armcognitiveservices
Java	com.azure.resourcemanager:azure-resourcemanager-cognitiveservices
JavaScript	@azure/arm-cognitiveservices

[mentat9]

v3

Use current (v6) common types for new APIs.

[mentat9]

,

Nit: remove spurious comma.

[mentat9]

id

[ARMBlockingComment] Don't reuse top-level property names within the property bag. This could be agentId (or something else you prefer), but would be better with a more specific name. Id is a very generic term: could mean name, number, guid, resourceId, etc.

[mentat9]

[ARMBlockingComment] Don't reuse top-level property names within the property bag. This could be agentName (or something else you prefer).

[mentat9]

id

[ARMBlockingComment] Don't reuse top-level property names within the property bag. This could be deploymentId (or something else you prefer). Try to make the name and type more specific.

[mentat9]

type

[ARMBlockingComment] Don't reuse top-level property names within the property bag. This could be deploymentType (or something else you prefer).

[mentat9]

id

[ARMBlockingComment] Don't reuse top-level property names within the property bag. This could be ruleId (or something else you prefer). Same comment applies here: try to avoid specifying a generic "id". Instead choose a name and type that indicates clearly what kind of id it is.