Dev/adtang/regulatory documents api

[whisper6284]

Initial regulatory documents APIs.

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi, @whisper6284 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-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger Validation Report

️️✔️BreakingChange succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️Breaking Change(Cross-Version) succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️❌LintDiff: 1 Errors, 8 Warnings failed [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v1.13.0)	new version	base version
package-regulatorypackages-2022-11-30-preview	package-regulatorypackages-2022-11-30-preview(f462f07)	default(main)

[must fix]The following errors/warnings are introduced by current PR:

Rule	Message	Related RPC [For API reviewers]
❌ R2003 - ValidFormats	'url' is not a known format. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L673
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L15
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackagesModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackages' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L69
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L113
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L156
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackagesModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackages' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L207
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L250
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L310
:warning: R2063 - OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'RegulatoryPackageModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'RegulatoryPackage' to avoid this. Note: If you have already shipped an SDK on top of this spec, fixing this warning may introduce a breaking change. Location: RegulatoryDocuments/preview/2022-11-30-preview/regulatorypackages.json#L363

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

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

Validation passes for ServiceAPIReadinessTest.

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️️✔️SDK Track2 Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SDKTrack2Validation

• The following tags are being changed in this PR
• "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/f462f077077ab470f2c4cc4be2a576e35d61c1ba/specification/communication/data-plane/RegulatoryDocuments/readme.md#tag-package-regulatorypackages-2022-11-30-preview">communication/data-plane/RegulatoryDocuments/readme.md#package-regulatorypackages-2022-11-30-preview

️️✔️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).

️️✔️CadlValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for CadlValidation.

️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Summary.

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

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger Generation Artifacts

️️✔️ApiDocPreview succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

 Please click here to preview with your @microsoft account. 

️️✔️SDK Breaking Change Tracking succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Breaking Changes Tracking

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

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi @whisper6284, 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-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger pipeline restarted successfully. If there is ApiView generated, it will be updated in this comment.