Cut over to aspire-9.0 schema.

[mitchdenny]

Description

Updating the schema to aspire-9.0. Just a rename of everything.

Fixes #6581

Checklist

• Is this feature complete?
  • Yes. Ready to ship.
  • No. Follow-up changes expected.
• Are you including unit tests for the changes and scenario tests if relevant?
  • Yes
  • No
• Did you add public API?
  • Yes
    • If yes, did you have an API Review for it?
      • Yes
      • No
    • Did you add <remarks /> and <code /> elements on your triple slash comments?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change make any security assumptions or guarantees?
  • Yes
    • If yes, have you done a threat model and had a security review?
      • Yes
      • No
  • No
• Does the change require an update in our Aspire docs?
  • Yes
    • Is this introducing a breaking change?
      • Yes
        • Link to aspire-docs issue (please use this breaking-change template):
      • No
        • Link to aspire-docs issue (please use this doc-idea template):
  • No

[eerhardt]

Should this go into the release/9.0 branch for our first servicing?

[mitchdenny]

Need to discuss strategy here with @davidfowl, @vhvb1989, and @ellismg

[eerhardt]

It's unfortunate that using the 9.0.0 bits today, can produce a manifest that doesn't conform to the schema it says it conforms to. For example:

1. Call the PublishAsAzureContainerApp method
2. This will produce a manifest that points to https://json.schemastore.org/aspire-8.0.json and also has project.v1, which isn't valid for that schema version.

Our playground app does this today:

aspire/playground/AzureContainerApps/AzureContainerApps.AppHost/aspire-manifest.json

Line 2 in 11c51e7

"$schema": "https://json.schemastore.org/aspire-8.0.json",

aspire/playground/AzureContainerApps/AzureContainerApps.AppHost/aspire-manifest.json

Lines 105 to 106 in 11c51e7

	"api": {
	"type": "project.v1",

[mitchdenny]

Yeah so there are two approaches we can take here. We can update the -8.0 schema on schema store with the one we have in our repo and just not bump the version, or we can ship a -9.0 schema and make sure it works everywhere.

[eerhardt]

I'd assume bumping the version is the "right" thing to do. It doesn't really make sense to add things and not change the version. Because what's the point of versioning it then?

[davidfowl]

It can be done dynamically