Continue ContainerApps MPG migration

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: live1206

.github/CODEOWNERS

@@ -290,22 +290,22 @@
 ###########
 # Eng Sys
 ###########
-/.gitattributes     @mikeharder @benbp
-/.gitignore         @mikeharder @benbp
-/.prettierrc.json   @mikeharder @benbp
-/package-lock.json  @mikeharder @benbp
-/package.json       @mikeharder @benbp
-/tsconfig.json      @mikeharder @benbp
-/.azure-pipelines/  @mikeharder @benbp
-/.github/           @mikeharder @benbp
-/.vscode/           @mikeharder @benbp
-/dev/               @mikeharder @benbp
-/eng/               @mikeharder @benbp
+/.gitattributes     @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/.gitignore         @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/.prettierrc.json   @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/package-lock.json  @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/package.json       @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/tsconfig.json      @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/.azure-pipelines/  @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp
+/.github/           @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp
+/.vscode/           @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp
+/dev/               @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp
+/eng/               @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp
 /eng/common/        @Azure/azure-sdk-eng
 /eng/tools/typespec-migration-validation @pshao25 @live1206
 /eng/tools/typespec-validation/**/sdk-tspconfig-validation*.ts @marygao @raych1 @maririos
-/scripts/           @mikeharder @benbp
-/specification/suppressions.yaml @mikeharder @benbp @raych1 @marygao @maririos @qiaozha
+/scripts/           @weshaggard @mikeharder
+/specification/suppressions.yaml @weshaggard @mikeharder @benbp @raych1 @marygao @maririos @qiaozha
 /.github/CODEOWNERS @Azure/azure-sdk-eng
 /.github/skills     @Azure/azure-sdk-eng @chunyu3 @lirenhe @ArthurMa1978 @haolingdong-msft
 

.github/agents/arm-api-reviewer.agent.md

@@ -314,10 +314,10 @@ After presenting the review findings to the human reviewer for approval:
    The existing comment already covers the exact same rule violation on the same file and line. **Skip posting.** No action needed.
 
    **Scenario B - Same finding, different line, comment was from _this agent or the same engineer running the agent_:**
-   The code has shifted (e.g., lines were added/removed) and the existing comment now points to an outdated line, but the violation still exists at a new location. **Resolve the outdated comment** (to reduce noise) and **post a new comment at the correct line** with the updated finding. In the new comment, reference the resolved thread (e.g., "_(Updated from previous comment at \<url\> - line shifted due to code changes.)_"). To identify whether an existing comment was posted by this agent, check if its body contains the substring `posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent`. Comments with this substring are agent-posted; comments without it are from human reviewers (apply Scenario C instead).
+   The code has shifted (e.g., lines were added/removed) and the existing comment now points to an outdated line, but the violation still exists at a new location. **Resolve the outdated comment** (to reduce noise) and **post a new comment at the correct line** with the updated finding. In the new comment, reference the resolved thread (e.g., "_(Updated from previous comment at \<url\> - line shifted due to code changes.)_"). To identify whether an existing comment was posted by this agent, check if its body contains the hidden marker `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent -->`. Comments with this marker are agent-posted; comments without it are from human reviewers (apply Scenario C instead).
 
    **Scenario C - Same finding, different line, comment was from a _different_ human reviewer:**
-   Another ARM reviewer (not this agent) posted the comment at the old line -- i.e., the comment body does **not** contain the substring `posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent`. Do **not** resolve their comment - it is their review thread and they may be tracking the conversation. Do **not** post a duplicate comment. Instead, **add a reply** to the existing thread noting the line shift: e.g., "_The code referenced by this comment has moved. The same violation now appears at `<file>` - line <N>. The issue is still unresolved._" This helps the author and reviewer find the right code without creating duplicate threads.
+   Another ARM reviewer (not this agent) posted the comment at the old line -- i.e., the comment body does **not** contain `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent -->`. Do **not** resolve their comment - it is their review thread and they may be tracking the conversation. Do **not** post a duplicate comment. Instead, **add a reply** to the existing thread noting the line shift: e.g., "_The code referenced by this comment has moved. The same violation now appears at `<file>` - line <N>. The issue is still unresolved._" This helps the author and reviewer find the right code without creating duplicate threads.
 
    **Scenario D - No new findings beyond what existing comments already cover:**
    If every finding from the current review is already covered by an existing comment (same file, same or nearby line, same rule), **do not post any new comments**. Report to the human reviewer: "_All findings from this review are already covered by existing comments on the PR. No new comments are needed - the existing threads already highlight the required changes._" List the existing comment threads that match, **including the comment URL** for each so the reviewer can click through and verify.
@@ -333,22 +333,7 @@ After presenting the review findings to the human reviewer for approval:
 5. Every posted comment **MUST** clearly tag the issue as `[NEW]` or `[EXISTING]` with an explanation of the classification (e.g., "This issue also exists in `2025-12-01-preview` at the same JSON path" or "Introduced in this PR - this property did not exist in the previous version").
 6. For `[NEW]` issues, include the severity level: `🔴 Blocking`, `🟡 Warning`, or `💡 Suggestion`.
 7. Use the format: ``**[NEW] 🔴 Blocking** **[<Rule ID>]** `<file-path>` - line <N> - <issue description>`` or ``**[EXISTING]** **[<Rule ID>]** `<file-path>` - line <N> - <issue description>`` followed by the classification reasoning and suggested fix.
-8. Every posted comment **MUST** end with a hidden HTML telemetry marker as the very last line of the comment body. The marker format is:
-
-   ```html
-   <!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent | rule: <RULE-ID> | severity: blocking|warning|suggestion | classification: new|existing -->
-   ```
-
-   - **`rule`**: The rule ID of the finding (e.g., `RPC-Put-V1-01`, `OAPI027`, `SEC-SECRET-DETECT`). Use `summary` for summary comments that don't flag a single rule.
-   - **`severity`**: One of `blocking`, `warning`, or `suggestion`.
-   - **`classification`**: One of `new` (introduced in this PR) or `existing` (pre-existing technical debt).
-
-   Example: `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent | rule: RPC-Put-V1-11 | severity: blocking | classification: new -->`
-
-   This marker is invisible in rendered markdown but enables querying agent-posted comments via the GitHub API, computing telemetry (comments per day, top rule violations, new-vs-existing ratio), and distinguishing agent comments from human comments during reconciliation. Do not omit this marker. All fields after `posted-by` are required.
-
-   **Backward compatibility:** To detect whether an existing comment was posted by this agent (e.g., during reconciliation in Scenarios B and C), check if the comment body contains the substring `posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent`. This matches both the old simple marker and the new extended marker.
-
+8. Every posted comment **MUST** end with the hidden HTML marker `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent -->` as the very last line of the comment body. This marker is invisible in rendered markdown but enables querying agent-posted comments via the GitHub API and distinguishing them from manually posted comments during reconciliation. Do not omit this marker.
 9. Prioritize posting **New** issues first, as these are the PR author's direct responsibility.
 10. **Report a reconciliation summary** to the human reviewer before posting:
     - Findings to **post as new comments** (with line numbers)

.github/arm-leases/monitor/Microsoft.Monitor/TraceAssociations/lease.yaml

@@ -173,20 +173,12 @@ PUT operation is missing `201` response for resource creation. ARM PUT must retu
 **Fix:** Add a `201` response with the same schema as the `200` response.
 ```
 
-Every comment **MUST** end with a hidden HTML telemetry marker as the very last line. The format is:
+Every comment **MUST** end with the hidden HTML marker:
 
 ```html
-<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent | rule: <RULE-ID> | severity: blocking|warning|suggestion | classification: new|existing -->
+<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent -->
 ```
 
-- **`rule`**: The rule ID of the finding (e.g., `RPC-Put-V1-11`, `OAPI027`). Use `summary` for summary comments.
-- **`severity`**: One of `blocking`, `warning`, or `suggestion`.
-- **`classification`**: One of `new` or `existing`.
-
-Example: `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent | rule: RPC-Put-V1-11 | severity: blocking | classification: new -->`
-
-To detect agent-posted comments during reconciliation, check for the substring `posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent` (matches both old and new marker formats).
-
 ---
 
 ## Severity Calibration
@@ -254,7 +246,7 @@ When reviewing a PR that already has comments from a prior review:
 The existing comment already covers this violation. **Skip posting.**
 
 **Scenario B -- Same finding, line shifted, agent-posted comment:**
-The existing comment body contains the substring `posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent`.
+The existing comment has the marker `<!-- posted-by: arm-api-reviewer-agent -->`.
 Resolve the outdated comment and post a new one at the correct line.
 
 **Scenario C -- Same finding, line shifted, human-posted comment:**

.github/copilot-review-instructions.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ permissions:
 jobs:
   arm-lease-validation:
     name: ARM Lease Validation
-    runs-on: ubuntu-24.04
+    runs-on: ubuntu-slim
 
     steps:
       - name: Checkout repository

.github/workflows/arm-lease-validation.yaml

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ jobs:
     if: |
       (github.event.action != 'labeled' && github.event.action != 'unlabeled') ||
       github.event.label.name == 'ARMModelingSignedOff'
-    runs-on: ubuntu-24.04
+    runs-on: ubuntu-slim
     steps:
       - name: Checkout repository
         uses: actions/checkout@v6

.github/workflows/arm-modeling-review.yaml

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ jobs:
   protected-files:
     name: Protected Files
 
-    runs-on: ubuntu-24.04
+    runs-on: ubuntu-slim
 
     steps:
       # Since check is required, the job must pass instead of being skipped

.github/workflows/protected-files.yaml

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ jobs:
   TypeSpec-Requirement:
     name: TypeSpec Requirement
 
-    runs-on: ubuntu-24.04
+    runs-on: ubuntu-slim
 
     steps:
       - uses: actions/checkout@v6

.github/workflows/typespec-requirement.yaml

@@ -141,36 +141,36 @@ else {
       }
     }
 
-    # Extract path to API version (between "specification" and swagger filename)
-    if ($file -match "specification/(?<apiVersion>[^/]+/($SpecType).*?/(preview|stable)/[^/]+)/[^/]+\.json$") {
-      $apiVersion = $Matches["apiVersion"]
+    # Extract path between "specification/" and "/(preview|stable)"
+    if ($file -match "specification/(?<servicePath>[^/]+/($SpecType).*?)/(preview|stable)/[^/]+/[^/]+\.json$") {
+      $servicePath = $Matches["servicePath"]
     }
     else {
       LogError "Path to OpenAPI did not match expected regex.  Unable to extract service path."
       LogJobFailure
       exit 1
     }
 
-    $urlToApiVersion = "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/tree/main/specification/$apiVersion"
+    $urlToStableFolder = "https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/tree/main/specification/$servicePath/stable"
 
     # Avoid conflict with pipeline secret
-    $logUrlToApiVersion = $urlToApiVersion -replace '^https://', ''
+    $logUrlToStableFolder = $urlToStableFolder -replace '^https://', ''
 
-    LogInfo "  Checking $logUrlToApiVersion"
+    LogInfo "  Checking $logUrlToStableFolder"
 
-    $responseStatus = $responseCache[$urlToApiVersion];
+    $responseStatus = $responseCache[$urlToStableFolder];
     if ($null -ne $responseStatus) {
       LogInfo "    Found in cache"
     }
     else {
       LogInfo "    Not found in cache, making web request"
       try {
-        $response = Invoke-WebRequest -Uri $urlToApiVersion -Method Head -SkipHttpErrorCheck
+        $response = Invoke-WebRequest -Uri $urlToStableFolder -Method Head -SkipHttpErrorCheck
         $responseStatus = $response.StatusCode
-        $responseCache[$urlToApiVersion] = $responseStatus
+        $responseCache[$urlToStableFolder] = $responseStatus
       }
       catch {
-        LogError "Exception making web request to ${logUrlToApiVersion}: $_"
+        LogError "Exception making web request to ${logUrlToStableFolder}: $_"
         LogJobFailure
         exit 1
       }
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ else {
     LogInfo "    Status: $responseStatus"
 
     if ($responseStatus -eq 200) {
-      LogInfo "  Branch 'main' contains path '$apiVersion', so API version already exists and is not required to use TypeSpec"
+      LogInfo "  Branch 'main' contains path '$servicePath/stable', so spec already exists and is not required to use TypeSpec"
 
       $warning = "WARNING: This PR uses OpenAPI / Swagger. All Azure services are required to convert to TypeSpec by March 30, 2026. PRs not using TypeSpec will be blocked after that date. Starting July 1, 2026, all SDKs will be generated from TypeSpec as the autorest toolchain is being retired. Please reach out to tspconversion@service.microsoft.com with any questions and see http://aka.ms/azsdk/typespec for more details on TypeSpec."
       LogWarningForFile $file $warning
@@ -190,11 +190,11 @@ else {
       }
     }
     elseif ($responseStatus -eq 404) {
-      LogInfo "  Branch 'main' does not contain path '$apiVersion', so API version is new and must use TypeSpec"
+      LogInfo "  Branch 'main' does not contain path '$servicePath/stable', so spec is new and must use TypeSpec"
       $pathsWithErrors += $file
     }
     else {
-      LogError "Unexpected response from ${logUrlToApiVersion}: ${responseStatus}"
+      LogError "Unexpected response from ${logUrlToStableFolder}: ${responseStatus}"
       LogJobFailure
       exit 1
     }
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ if ($pathsWithErrors.Count -gt 0) {
   LogJobFailure
 
   foreach ($path in $pathsWithErrors) {
-    LogErrorForFile $path "OpenAPI was not generated from TypeSpec, and API version appears to be new"
+    LogErrorForFile $path "OpenAPI was not generated from TypeSpec, and spec appears to be new"
   }
   exit 1
 }