[Azure Search] Add new skill and cognitive services attachment to SDK

[arv100kri]

Description

• Regenerate the SDK to generate code for EntityRecognitionSkill and the ability to attach cognitive services to a skillset - this is from the REST spec merged via this PR
• Mark NamedEntityRecognitionSkill as deprecated
• Add a CosmosDb data source creation method, to address Azure Search SDK: Missing CosmosDb data source creation methods #5060 and mark DocumentDb method as deprecated
• Expose the jsonLines indexer parsing mode which was recently introduced in the REST API
• Update tests for skills, skillsets and data sources

---

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

• Please add REST spec PR link to the SDK PR
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines

• Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

• Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

• If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
• The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code.
• The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK.

[arv100kri]

Does marking properties/methods/members constitute as a breaking change?
It shouldn't matter anyway, I think because we have bumped up the version number anyway, correct?

[brjohnstmsft]

@arv100kri Do you mean marking members with [Obsolete]? That isn't a breaking change in and of itself. And you're right; It doesn't matter anyway because we've bumped the major version number in anticipation of breaking changes for Complex Types.

[arv100kri]

@arv100kri Do you mean marking members with [Obsolete]? That isn't a breaking change in and of itself. And you're right; It doesn't matter anyway because we've bumped the major version number in anticipation of breaking changes for Complex Types.

Yup, and thanks for clarifying!

[brjohnstmsft]

Almost there, just a few more minor changes

[brjohnstmsft]

Still confused by the tests :(