Remove repeatability support for token revocation endpoint

[maximrytych-ms]

Removing repeatability support for /identities/{id}/:revokeAccessTokens endpoint. Support will be implemented later in MVP1 feature.

This version is not GA yet -> no breaking change.

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Swagger Validation Report

️❌BreakingChange: 3 Errors, 0 Warnings failed [Detail]

compared swaggers (via Oad v0.10.4)]	new version	base version
CommunicationIdentity.json	2023-08-01(8751480)	2023-08-01(main)

Rule	Message
❌ 1014 - RemovingHeader	The new version removs a required header 'Repeatability-Result'. Old: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L162:15
❌ 1046 - RemovedOptionalParameter	The optional parameter 'Repeatability-Request-ID' was removed in the new version. Old: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L137:11
❌ 1046 - RemovedOptionalParameter	The optional parameter 'Repeatability-First-Sent' was removed in the new version. Old: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L144:11

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

There are no breaking changes.

️️✔️CredScan succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

There is no credential detected.

️⚠️LintDiff: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

compared tags (via openapi-validator v2.1.3)	new version	base version
package-2023-08	package-2023-08(8751480)	package-2023-08(main)

The following errors/warnings exist before current PR submission:

Rule	Message
❌ XmsParameterLocation	The parameter 'ApiVersionParameter' is defined in global parameters section without 'x-ms-parameter-location' extension. This would add the parameter as the client property. Please ensure that this is exactly you want. If so, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'client'. Else, apply the extension 'x-ms-parameter-location': 'method'. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L387
❌ HostParametersValidation	The host parameter must be typed 'type 'string', format 'url''. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L409
:warning: OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' 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: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L15
:warning: ParameterNamesConvention	header parameter name 'Repeatability-Request-ID' should be kebab case. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L28
:warning: RequestBodyOptional	The body parameter is not marked as required. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L40
:warning: ErrorResponse	Error response should contain a x-ms-error-code header. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L50
:warning: Post201Response	Using post for a create operation is discouraged. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L56
:warning: OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' 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: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L82
:warning: PathParameterSchema	Path parameter should specify a maximum length (maxLength) and characters allowed (pattern). Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L87
:warning: ErrorResponse	Error response should contain a x-ms-error-code header. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L99
:warning: OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' 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: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L122
:warning: PathParameterSchema	Path parameter should specify a maximum length (maxLength) and characters allowed (pattern). Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L127
:warning: ErrorResponse	Error response should contain a x-ms-error-code header. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L139
:warning: OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' 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: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L162
:warning: ErrorResponse	Error response should contain a x-ms-error-code header. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L184
:warning: OperationIdNounConflictingModelNames	OperationId has a noun that conflicts with one of the model names in definitions section. The model name will be disambiguated to 'CommunicationIdentityModel'. Consider using the plural form of 'CommunicationIdentity' 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: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L210
:warning: PathParameterSchema	Path parameter should specify a maximum length (maxLength) and characters allowed (pattern). Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L218
:warning: ErrorResponse	Error response should contain a x-ms-error-code header. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L239
:warning: SchemaDescriptionOrTitle	Schema should have a description or title. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L293
:warning: SchemaDescriptionOrTitle	Schema should have a description or title. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L331
:warning: SchemaDescriptionOrTitle	Schema should have a description or title. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L363
:warning: SecurityDefinitionDescription	Security definition should have a description. Location: Identity/stable/2023-08-01/CommunicationIdentity.json#L396

️️✔️Avocado succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Avocado.

️️✔️ApiReadinessCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️⚠️~[Staging] ServiceAPIReadinessTest: 0 Warnings warning [Detail]

API Test is not triggered due to precheck failure. Check pipeline log for details.

️️✔️SwaggerAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️CadlAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️TypeSpecAPIView succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

️️✔️ModelValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for ModelValidation.

️️✔️SemanticValidation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for SemanticValidation.

️️✔️PoliCheck succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passed for PoliCheck.

️️✔️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.

️️✔️TypeSpec Validation succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for TypeSpec Validation.

️️✔️PR Summary succeeded [Detail] [Expand]

Validation passes for Summary.

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

[openapi-workflow-bot[bot]]

Hi, @maximrytych-ms 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 pipeline restarted successfully, please wait for status update in this comment.

[openapi-pipeline-app[bot]]

Generated ApiView

Language	Package Name	ApiView Link
Swagger	communication-data-plane-Identity	https://apiview.dev/Assemblies/Review/2fdb337d780c4c5c897d2860a928ed68

[DominikMe]

@jhendrixMSFT Can you help us override the breaking changes check - for background: the last merge had added repeatability headers for a future api-version. Now they've discovered that they won't be able to implement them for both routes and removed one again. So net-change there will be a new stable api-version which adds the headers only for one route.

(We probably shouldn't have merged to main and keep this as a feature branch a while longer)

[jhendrixMSFT]

@JeffreyRichter can you please take a look at the breaking change?

[JeffreyRichter]

I need more context here. Did a previous api-version ship that supported this header and now support for the header is being removed? I assume that 2023-08-01 never shipped, right?

[maximrytych-ms]

@JeffreyRichter this version hasn't been shipped yet, so this shouldn't be a breaking change. Thank you.

[JeffreyRichter]

The BreakingChange label isn't applied to this PR so I don't think I have to approve it, but I did anyway.

@mikekistler: What should I do here? Is this in the right branch? Maybe they just shouldn't not have tried to make the PR to main yet? I know you wrote up the rules around this, but I can't remember where they are, if they are final, and if they're somewhere available to others (so we could add the link to PRs like this). We need to get this information out to everyone (including me).

[rajuanitha88]

@mikekistler : Can you help on the above question from @JeffreyRichter and help us merge this PR.

[mikekistler]

I agree with this:

(We probably shouldn't have merged to main and keep this as a feature branch a while longer)

But that's water under the bridge. This PR makes things right, so we should go forward. This is good to merge.

[maximrytych-ms]

Thank you for the approval, @mikekistler. Could you or @jhendrixMSFT please merge the PR? Thanks!