Update Microsoft.PolicyInsights .NET SDK

[eladperets]

All SDK Contribution checklist:

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

• Please open PR in Draft mode if it is:
  • Work in progress or not intended to be merged.
  • Encountering multiple pipeline failures and working on fixes.
• If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec
  changes has been included above.
  Swagger pull requests:
  [Hub Generated] Review request for Microsoft.PolicyInsights to add version stable/2021-10-01 azure-rest-api-specs#16250
  Add Microsoft.PolicyInsights/attestations API azure-rest-api-specs#12661
  Microsoft.PolicyInsights/checkPolicyRestrictions API azure-rest-api-specs#10798
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines and Best Practices

• Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

• Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

• The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code. (Track 2 only)
• The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK. Please double check nuget.org current release version.

Additional management plane SDK specific contribution checklist:

Note: Only applies to Microsoft.Azure.Management.[RP] or Azure.ResourceManager.[RP]

• Include updated management metadata.
• Update AzureRP.props to add/remove version info to maintain up to date API versions.

Management plane SDK Troubleshooting

• If this is very first SDK for a services and you are adding new service folders directly under /SDK, please add new service label and/or contact assigned reviewer.

• If the check fails at the Verify Code Generation step, please ensure:

  • Do not modify any code in generated folders.
  • Do not selectively include/remove generated files in the PR.
  • Do use generate.ps1/cmd to generate this PR instead of calling autorest directly.
    Please pay attention to the @microsoft.csharp version output after running generate.ps1. If it is lower than current released version (2.3.82), please run it again as it should pull down the latest version.

  Note: We have recently updated the PSH module called by generate.ps1 to emit additional data. This would help reduce/eliminate the Code Verification check error. Please run following command:

    `dotnet msbuild eng/mgmt.proj /t:Util /p:UtilityName=InstallPsModules`
  

Old outstanding PR cleanup

Please note:
If PRs (including draft) has been out for more than 60 days and there are no responses from our query or followups, they will be closed to maintain a concise list for our reviewers.

[Yao725]

LGTM

[Yao725]

/azp run net - mgmt - ci

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[Yao725]

/azp run net - mgmt - ci

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[eladperets]

@Yao725 Can you please merge this PR? Thanks!

[Yao725]

@Yao725 Can you please merge this PR? Thanks!

Hi @eladperets , the ci failed because of the code discrepancy between your PR and reference generation. Have you modified the generated code in Generated folder and why?

[eladperets]

@Yao725 Can you please merge this PR? Thanks!

Hi @eladperets , the ci failed because of the code discrepancy between your PR and reference generation. Have you modified the generated code in Generated folder and why?

@Yao725 yes, I have modified it. The generated code has methods with weird names like NextLink1WithHttpMessagesAsync, which we renamed to something more meaningful. This already existed in previous versions of the SDK, but every time we re-generate it we need to manually rename these methods.

I tried to break down the PR to several commits to make it easier to see. The first commit contains the raw output of autorest. You can see it changes some of the method names. The second commit reverts the method names to their old and more readable names. The rest of the changes include the new changes to the API and their tests.

[Yao725]

@Yao725 Can you please merge this PR? Thanks!

Hi @eladperets , the ci failed because of the code discrepancy between your PR and reference generation. Have you modified the generated code in Generated folder and why?

@Yao725 yes, I have modified it. The generated code has methods with weird names like NextLink1WithHttpMessagesAsync, which we renamed to something more meaningful. This already existed in previous versions of the SDK, but every time we re-generate it we need to manually rename these methods.

I tried to break down the PR to several commits to make it easier to see. The first commit contains the raw output of autorest. You can see it changes some of the method names. The second commit reverts the method names to their old and more readable names. The rest of the changes include the new changes to the API and their tests.

@eladperets Yeah, that makes sense to me and I can merge it. But I think it is a more efficient way to implement renaming by using directive which could guarantee CI pass and avoid manually changing it each time. Maybe we can do it in track 2 SDK.

[Yao725]

/check-enforcer override