Generated v1.0 models and request builders using Typewriter

[github-actions]

This pull request was automatically created by the GitHub Action, create pull request.

The commit hash is 9957d57.

Important Check for unexpected deletions or changes in this PR.

• Check that the changes match the changes in the captured commit for v1.0_metadata.xml

cc: @darrelmiller

[zengin]

nit: note to self (@zengin). why is the sort order not canonical?

[zengin]

@MIchaelMainer
Sorry for not catching this earlier, but this is a breaking change. Unfortunately this is already in but is reflected in type summary today because previous check-in did not generate the type summary, i.e. the commit was not generated using the pipeline.

See the linqpad example below for how people's code can break:

void Main()
{
	var output = GetAsync().Result;
	var output2 = GetAsync2().Result;
	if (output)
	{
		Console.WriteLine("Compiles");
	}
	
	if (output2)
	{
		Console.WriteLine("Does not compile because output2 is a nullable boolean and can't be used directly in if conditions");
	}
}

public async Task<bool> GetAsync()
{
	return true;
}

public async Task<bool?> GetAsync2()
{
	return true;
}

[MIchaelMainer]

@zengin You are technically correct. The thing is that it was already broken and wasn't working before. So no one could've taken a dependency on these features. So this change does make it not breaking. The issue for me is that how did this not get in the manual build?

[zengin]

Thanks for the clarification on the breaking change.

Did you generate #800 using the pipeline? If not, it is expected that the type summary was not updated.

[MIchaelMainer]

No, I didn't. It would've be useful for me to capture summary in my PR.

[zengin]

@baywet @nikithauc @MIchaelMainer

Btw, I run into these non-breaking breaking changes every now and then. Can we come up (or reuse) some term for this so that I can just say bla? and bla? represents:

This is technically a breaking change, but is this one of those cases where nobody could've taken a dependency on this due to broken state so it is not a breaking change?

Does anybody know such a term?
cc: @ddyett @darrelmiller @peombwa

[zengin]

I am confused about the removal of MessageRequestBuilder->Forward.

The metadata seems to be only moving message->forward, but adding event->forward. This doesn't match with the change here.

[zengin]

I am confused about the removal of MessageRequestBuilder->Forward.

The metadata seems to be only moving message->forward, but adding event->forward. This doesn't match with the change here.

This is resolved. It is only moved.