Azure Resource Manager
-
Please fix the schemas, fighting with tooling is hard
Hello,
1. Schemas are outdated in Visual Studio tooling
2. Enabling static web sites and default documents does not work
3. Enabling connection string setting mapping to Key Vault secrets does not work, need to use appsettings instead
4. newGuid in params does not work with schema validation VS2019
5. reference ( , , 'Full') is not recognized by schema validator in VS2019
in addition:
1. Azure AD PowerShell has dependencies on PowerShell desktop, like WindowsForms... Do we need that? Can we just stick with PS Core?
2. Consistent documentation of what supported by tool: REST, Az PowerShell, Az CLI,…1 vote -
certificateorders don't emit tags to billing API
Certificate orders are not emitting tags to the Cost API even though this document states they should
1 vote -
Bug with Hybrid Connection Deployments
I have got an ARM template with the following resources:
"resources":[
{
"name":"[parameters('webSiteName')]",
"type":"Microsoft.Web/serverfarms",
"apiVersion":"2018-02-01",
"location":"[resourceGroup().location]",
"tags":{},
"properties":{
"name":"[parameters('webSiteName')]"
},
"sku":{
"name":"[parameters('skuName')]",
"capacity":"[parameters('skuCapacity')]"
}
},
{
"name":"[parameters('webSiteName')]",
"type":"Microsoft.Web/sites",
"apiVersion":"2018-02-01",
"location":"[resourceGroup().location]",
"tags":{},
"dependsOn":[
"[resourceId('Microsoft.Web/serverfarms/', parameters('webSiteName'))]"
],
"properties":{
"serverFarmId":"[resourceId('Microsoft.Web/serverfarms', parameters('webSiteName'))]"
},
"resources":[
{
"type":"hybridConnectionNamespaces/relays",
"name":"[concat(variables('relayName'), '/', parameters('hybridConnection_db_Name'))]",
"apiVersion":"2018-02-01",
"location":"[resourceGroup().location]",
"properties":{
"serviceBusNamespace":"[variables('relayName')]",
"relayName":"[parameters('hybridConnection_db_Name')]",
"relayArmUri":"[variables('hybridConnection_db_ResourceId')]",
"hostName":"[parameters('hybridConnection_db_EndpointHostname')]",
"port":"[parameters('hybridConnection_db_EndpointPort')]",
"sendKeyName":"defaultSender",
"sendKeyValue":"[listkeys(concat(variables('hybridConnection_db_ResourceId'), '/authorizationRules/defaultSender'), '2017-04-01').primaryKey]"
},
"dependsOn":[
"[resourceId('Microsoft.Web/Sites', parameters('websiteName'))]"
]
},
{
"name":"appsettings",
"type":"config",
"apiVersion":"2015-08-01",
"dependsOn":[
"[resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites', parameters('webSiteName'))]"
],
"properties":{
"foo": "bar"
}
}
]
}
]Occasionally when running the template I receive the following error message:
"Code": "Conflict",
"Message": "A hybrid connection already exists…1 vote -
Trim tag names entered in the Portal UI
Please trim the names of tag names entered in the Portal UI. We have encountered issues and policy violations because unintentional spaces were included in the tag names. These spaces are common because the required tags are copied and pasted from other sources, so it's been a common problem.
There should be no reason not to trim the names. What customer would actually want a name of " applicationId" instead of a trimmed "applicationId" name... this feels like a no-brainer. :)
1 vote -
Creation/updation of Metric alert on Application Insights's Custom metric through ARM should be allowed even if there is no data emitted.
As of today, if there is no data emitted in the past 24 hours for a custom metric at app insights, ARM does not allow to create or update a metric alert and shows "metric name not found" Error.
To create/update an alert we have to wait for the data logging/emitting which does not make sense. It leaves us to perform two ARM deployment while it can be achieved in a single one.
6 votes -
resource group rename
The possibility to rename an Azure Resource Group.
When you create a resource group you cannot rename it. You need to create a new one and move all resources to the new group.
If you decide to apply naming conventions and want to change your resource group names it's currently not doable if you have many groups.
1 vote -
Deploy-AzureResourceGroup.ps1 relies on outdated AzureRM module instead of new AZ module
Azure Resource Group Visual Studio template generates Deploy-AzureResourceGroup.ps1 that relies on outdated PowerShell module - AzureRM. New module named AZ should be used.
Also, this script doesn't contain a #Requires -Modules instruction for non default modules, which leads to errors in the middle of script execution for those, who already migrated to AZ module.https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/azure/new-azureps-module-az?view=azps-2.4.0#continued-support-for-azurerm
"The existing AzureRM module will no longer receive new cmdlets or features."2 votes -
Run Ansible/Chef/Salt on deployment via ARM
When you deploy a Linux or Windows virtual machine deployment, via ARM. Allow an Ansible playbook to be run.
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
[Request] Suggession on Deployment Modes in Azure
Hi Microsoft Team,
I really appreciate the Microsoft efforts for rapidly catching up market for Azure.
I have little suggestion over here for Azure Dev ops CI/CD using ARM Templates.There are two options given for deployment mode. i.e "Incremental" and "Complete".
"Complete" Mode of deployment deletes the existing services under that Resource Group. Even though it will be useful to discard unwanted services, still it is very dangerous. 'An Err is Human.' By mistake if this option is selected in pipline then all the services will be deleted and its difficult to restore it. This leads to raising support tickets…1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Cleaning up Azure deployments is slow
I was wondering why the cleanup of Azure deployments is so slow. Is there any room for improvement in this area or is this cleanup quite complex/resource intensive?
We run the following Powershell script to cleanup deployments after each release so we always keep below the 800 deployments threshold.
Remove-AzureRmResourceGroupDeployment -ResourceGroupName $Resourcegroup -Name $deployment.DeploymentName
This command takes about 40 seconds to cleanup one deployment.
Just curious if this is normal behaviour?1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
ARM template Resource type parity documentation across Commercial, Gov, other environments
In addition to the resource status monitor (https://status.azure.com/en-us/status), knowing what ARM resources types are supported across environments. It seems that some types have schemas, but aren't supported in templates. As an example Microsoft.Web/sites/publicCertificates had a schema but still wasn't supported until late August 2018 (https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-ux/issues/3019).
I've attached an example of what I'm looking for. Other icons could be used if there are catches for a specific environment such as a property can't be used in one environment vs another.
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Having a standard option to add tags while creating any resource using azure portal experience
Hi Team,
there is a policy where we can enforce tagging while creating the resource, but the policy is currently of no use because while creating service bus,logic app etc via azure portal experience we can't add tags and hence we will not be able to create this resource as we have applied policy.
So I please request to the team to add this feature as it's critical if we want to use policies to manage our resources.It should be standardized for every resource and should be a basic feature, If you are providing an option to tag resources,…
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Apply tags from the day resources are created and not the day the tags are created.
Apply tags from the day resources are created and not the day the tags are created. Currently tags are only available from the day the tags are created and not the day the resources were created.
2 votesThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
1 vote
Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Add core fields to common alert schema
The current variables passed in the webhook json are limited, and do not include some of the core values related to the monitoring object. Mainly, the following are not present, but would be very helpful when building alert integrations:
1) Resource (Affected resource)
2) Resource Group
3) Resource Type
4) Alert ID
5) SubscriptionWhat is interesting is that they appear in the email alerts when using the common schema, but not the json payload when using a webhook.
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Allow actual output of type "securestring"
When defining ARM outputs, "securestring" is a valid type, but nothing is actually outputted. This raises the question as to why it's a valid type, if it serves no purpose.
The "securestring" should be returned for further processing. (Alternately, there should be a schema error for specifying a type that can't work.)
Additional discussion at https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/issues/32931.
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Deleting Process
My ideas to create a subscription based on Dev,test or production environment,reason for this any resource can be deleted by click of a button,if you want to win a customers confidence on an virtual IT infrastructure on the cloud it has to be resilient like a physical asset that no matters which employee is administrating the cloud owner knows that nothing can be deleted in virtual world without any intimation or outages and the asset is safe for one week even after deletion.
Thought process is to enhance the resource lock process for production environment where virtual servers in prod…
2 votesThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Allow unicode/emoji in resource group names
Our service is a management layer over azure, providing our customers with an app which creates azure resources in our subscriptions under resource groups that represent their accounts.
We would like to create related resource groups associated with these "customer representing" resource groups that would be used for things such as testing, mirroring etc. We'd like to create these resource groups with a similar name, a name that represents what this related resource group is for, and one that wont collide with other resource group names (which are based off of account names).
To enable this, we'd like to prefix…
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
Please increase the subscription 12,000 read requests per hour limitation
We have a subscription's "12,000 read requests per hour" limitation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/resource-manager-request-limits.
It can't fullfill customer requirement when the subscription is shared by multiple AAD client application.
Please increase this limitation
2 votesThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
-
request permissions access control
Add workflow for getting access to resources. I should be able to request access via Access control (IAM) in a resource, and it should go to the owners for approval. This should help streamline and improve efficiency to getting access to resources.
1 voteThanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
- Don't see your idea?