Allow specifying metadata in bicep in addition to metadata.json

[StephenWeatherford]

This is meant to ease the conversion away from metadata.json and to using metadata in the bicep file. It changes:

1. Picks up metadata in bicep, if present, when generating readme.md
2. If metadata present in bicep, enforces that it's the same as what's in metadata.json

Right now the metadata.json file is still required, the metadata in bicep is optional (but if present, will get picked up by Bicep for hover).

Technically this checkin isn't necessary for v0.18 because the current brm ignores metadata in the bicep file, but it does help reduce confusion if the bicep metadata and metadata.json are inconsistent.

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[github-actions]

Test Results (win-x64)

       33 files  ±0         33 suites  ±0   37m 35s ⏱️ + 11m 6s
10 055 tests ±0  10 055 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
12 267 runs  ±0  12 267 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 89f662a. ± Comparison against base commit 2c9cd5b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Test Results (osx-x64)

       33 files  ±0         33 suites  ±0   1h 33m 22s ⏱️ + 9m 28s
10 047 tests ±0  10 047 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
12 260 runs  ±0  12 260 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 89f662a. ± Comparison against base commit 2c9cd5b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Test Results (linux-musl-x64)

       33 files  ±0         33 suites  ±0   30m 20s ⏱️ - 4m 2s
10 043 tests ±0  10 043 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
12 256 runs  ±0  12 256 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 89f662a. ± Comparison against base commit 2c9cd5b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Test Results (linux-x64)

       33 files  ±0         33 suites  ±0   36m 54s ⏱️ + 7m 21s
10 043 tests ±0  10 043 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
12 256 runs  ±0  12 256 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 89f662a. ± Comparison against base commit 2c9cd5b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[shenglol]

Can we call context.Console.WriteWarning in GenerateCommand.InvokeInternal to mention that metadata.json will be deprecated in a future release?

[StephenWeatherford]

Can we call context.Console.WriteWarning in GenerateCommand.InvokeInternal to mention that metadata.json will be deprecated in a future release?

We can. I'm not positive if it makes sense. With these changes, metadata.json is still required, so there's nothing they can do.

Do you think I should go ahead and make metadata.json optional now? It's more work, including we'd need a new bicep file validator, so I hesitated. I think when metadata.json is optional it makes sense to have the obsolete warning. I was thinking we'd make metadata.json optional in 0.19.0 and then in 0.20.0 or later we could remove support for it.

Thoughts?

Edit: How about what I did in 28ab9b0? That way we only muddy the water if we have added the metadata in bicep for them and they're confused why they're having to update both.

[shenglol]

Can we call context.Console.WriteWarning in GenerateCommand.InvokeInternal to mention that metadata.json will be deprecated in a future release?

We can. I'm not positive if it makes sense. With these changes, metadata.json is still required, so there's nothing they can do.

Do you think I should go ahead and make metadata.json optional now? It's more work, including we'd need a new bicep file validator, so I hesitated. I think when metadata.json is optional it makes sense to have the obsolete warning. I was thinking we'd make metadata.json optional in 0.19.0 and then in 0.20.0 or later we could remove support for it.

Thoughts?

Edit: How about what I did in 28ab9b0? That way we only muddy the water if we have added the metadata in bicep for them and they're confused why they're having to update both.

I think adding the deprecation warning later when metadata.json is optional does make more sense, and the changes in [28ab9b0] is good enough for now.

[shenglol]