Fix TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription to exclude tenant level API's…

[AkhilaIlla]

The fix in the PR - Fix TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription to author tenant-level APIs by tejaswiMinnu · Pull Request … introduced a regression which makes the rule terminate even if a single tenant level API is encountered/present in the spec file.

The spec in this Typespec for Postgres Migration RP by nikhilhope3 · Pull Request #25493 · Azure/azure-rest-api-specs-pr has-

"/providers/Microsoft.DataMigration/operations"

making the rule to terminate and not validate further.

This PR addresses-https://msazure.visualstudio.com/One/_workitems/edit/36410442 and fixes the regression and also addresses the scenario to skip tenant level API's from validation.

[raosuhas]

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a regression in the TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription ARM rule that caused validation to stop as soon as any tenant-level API path was encountered, and adds tests to ensure correct behavior for tenant-only and mixed-scope specs.

Changes:

• Updated TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription to:
  • Use full ResourceInfo objects instead of just names.
  • Skip validation when a spec has no subscription-scoped paths at all (including x-ms-paths).
  • Only validate top-level resources that actually have subscription-scoped operations.
  • De-duplicate validation per model name and ignore purely tenant-scoped resources.
• Extended composite-azure-tests with new test cases for:
  • Tenant-only specs.
  • Mixed tenant and subscription specs missing list-by-subscription.
  • Subscription-scoped paths defined under x-ms-paths.
• Added three focused Swagger fixtures to model tenant-only, mixed tenant/subscription, and x-ms-paths subscription scenarios.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
packages/rulesets/src/native/legacyRules/TopLevelResourcesListBySubscription.ts	Refines rule logic to correctly distinguish tenant-only specs, require list-by-subscription only for resources with subscription-scoped operations, and avoid duplicate reports per model.
packages/rulesets/src/native/tests/composite-azure-tests.ts	Adds targeted tests for tenant-only, mixed-scope, and x-ms-paths subscription scenarios and clarifies the existing compute test comment.
packages/rulesets/src/native/tests/resources/armResource/topLevelListBySubscription_tenantOnlyResource.json	New tenant-only Swagger fixture to verify that list-by-subscription validation is skipped when no subscription-scoped paths exist.
packages/rulesets/src/native/tests/resources/armResource/topLevelListBySubscription_subscriptionInXmsPaths_missingCollection.json	New Swagger fixture to ensure subscription-scoped paths under x-ms-paths still trigger list-by-subscription validation.
packages/rulesets/src/native/tests/resources/armResource/topLevelListBySubscription_mixedTenantAndSubscription_missingCollection.json	New Swagger fixture to confirm that mixed tenant and subscription specs still enforce list-by-subscription for subscription-scoped top-level resources.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[tejaswiMinnu]

Somehow this block causes the rule to terminate entirely when a spec contains ANY tenant-level API,
even if the spec also has subscription-scoped resources that need validation.
Subscription-scoped resources should be validated for list operations per resources that you are already handling on lines 39 - 42

[AkhilaIlla]

I dont understand.
line 23 checks for all the sub level paths in the spec.
line 24 is for early termination if there arent any sub paths.

I dont think this actually skips validating the sub paths., right?

[tejaswiMinnu]

You're right that line 23 checks for subscription-level paths and line 24 exits if there aren't any.
But that's exactly the problem, the rule's job is to detect MISSING list-by-subscription operations.

If the list-by-subscription operation is missing (which is what we want to flag),
then hasAnySubscriptionScopedPath will be false, and line 24 exits early.

We can't report missing subscription-scoped paths if we exit when they're missing
My suggestion is to remove lines 21-26

[AkhilaIlla]

Thats a very good point. I'm double checking into if we can ever end up in that scenario.
Checking what top-level-resources actually are.

[tejaswiMinnu]

@AkhilaIlla We need to update package.json

[mikeharder]

@copilot: Update changelog and package.json, similar to how you did it in #813

[Copilot]

@mikeharder I've opened a new pull request, #814, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

[mikeharder]

@mikeharder I've opened a new pull request, #814, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

@copilot: No, add the changes to this PR.

[Copilot]

@mikeharder I've opened a new pull request, #815, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

[mikeharder]

@copilot: increment the patch version by one

[Copilot]

@mikeharder I've opened a new pull request, #818, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.