New Beta resource: azurerm_windows_function_app
#14247
Conversation
jackofallops
added
new-resource
service/app-service
service/functions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @jackofallops - initial review with comments left inline
| "scm_use_main_ip_restriction": { | ||
| Type: pluginsdk.TypeBool, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| Default: false, | ||
| Description: "Should the Windows Function App `ip_restriction` configuration be used for the SCM also.", | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "scm_ip_restriction": IpRestrictionSchema(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should these properties conflict?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The service accepts and updates this even if the ScmIPSecurityRestrictionsUseMain is true. There may be use-cases where this is necessary?
| Description: "The number of pre-warmed instances for this function app. Only affects apps on an Elastic Premium plan.", | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "remote_debugging": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this be
| "remote_debugging": { | |
| "remote_debugging_enabled": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is consistent with the Windows Function App, but it is more in keeping with the provider, so I'll update both to the suggested value.
| Description: "Should Remote Debugging be enabled. Defaults to `false`.", | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "remote_debugging_version": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we include what version this referse to?
| "remote_debugging_version": { | |
| "remote_debugging_visualstudio_version": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The possible values include the prefix VS so I think including visualstudio in the property name may be confusing here, possibly leading to users expecting to use 2017, 2019 etc instead?
| Description: "The amount of time in minutes that a node is unhealthy before being removed from the load balancer. Possible values are between `2` and `10`. Defaults to `10`. Only valid in conjunction with `health_check_path`", | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "number_of_workers": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as we use count normally should this be
| "number_of_workers": { | |
| "worker_count": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is used in all the other resources in the beta also, so perhaps follow this PR with another that addresses it consistently throughout, rather than broadening the scope of change here?
| "client_cert_enabled": { | ||
| Type: pluginsdk.TypeBool, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| Default: false, | ||
| Description: "Should the function app use Client Certificates", | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "client_cert_mode": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we expand cert?
| "client_cert_enabled": { | |
| Type: pluginsdk.TypeBool, | |
| Optional: true, | |
| Default: false, | |
| Description: "Should the function app use Client Certificates", | |
| }, | |
| "client_cert_mode": { | |
| "client_certificate_enabled": { | |
| Type: pluginsdk.TypeBool, | |
| Optional: true, | |
| Default: false, | |
| Description: "Should the function app use Client Certificates", | |
| }, | |
| "client_certificate_mode": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above, this affects all the other resources.
replicate compatible tests over from Linux
jackofallops
force-pushed
the
f/beta_windows_function_app
branch
from
c9a4ca8
to
4fbe9cb
Compare
jackofallops
dismissed
katbyte’s stale review
Discussed offline, followup PR to address across the RP.
|
This functionality has been released in v2.89.0 of the Terraform Provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template. Thank you! |
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
No description provided.