This feature is currently in active development. We will update this item to complete once it has shipped so those voting/commenting will be notified.
Thank you for your patience.
Work on AAD Support for control plane has started. Will update here as this feature moves into generally availability.
Thank you for your suggestion and votes.
Thank you for your feedback. We’re considering this for a future release of Azure Search.
Azure Search Product Team
Bytecode support for Gremlin API is scheduled for public preview, December 2019.
Our apologies for not updating this ask earlier. Renaming Blobs is on our backlog, but is unlikely to be released in the coming year. Today, you can use the “Copy Blob” API as a workaround.
Using the Azure Files service you can address Azure Storage like a network share using the SMB2.1 protocol. This enables usage of normal Windows API’s to rename files and directories. You can get started with the Files service by visiting https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/storage-dotnet-how-to-use-files.
For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at email@example.com.
We definitely recognize the popularity of this feature, and we discuss it constantly during the planning phases. However there are certain technical limitations in the system that add a large amount of development cost. Because of the cost and the fact that there is a workaround available, other features get prioritized over this one.
That being said, please keep voting for it. The popularity of the feature does help bring it up and makes us reconsider every time.
Apologies for the delay.
We’re doing some research both on the specifics of this ask as well as what it would take to support this.
Is the ask here to do the same thing that regular Azure AD does (see: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2014/12/18/azure-active-directory-now-with-group-claims-and-application-roles/) or is are there different requirements around this for Azure AD B2C?
Wow. This is the top feature request for B2C - *for years* - and the team is saying that it is not on a roadmap.
If this most basic feature has a 'large development cost', then someone has seriously messed up in designing this system.
Please implement asap.
As the previous poster mentioned, the very little bit of documentation that exists for an actual implementation of a workaround is quite poor and out of date.
Myself and my teams have been *trying* to work with AAD B2C for *years* and this glacial progress has sadly been typical. This is very basic functionality that almost anyone using B2C will run in to almost *immediately* once they try to start using it.
Please: Be heroes. Disprove the terrible reputation the team behind B2C has earned. Implement this fundamental feature ASAP.
We’ve put out a new version of the sign in policy called sign in v2. This is available through the new portal experience and we have rebranded policies as user flows. Please give this a try and give us feedback through this link: https://microsoft.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0Gu45RkBy2YR1kh
We have released the public preview for this feature! Learn more about how to use it here: https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory-b2c/active-directory-b2c-setup-oidc-azure-active-directory
We’re continuing to investigate options for adding this support. There are technical challenges to overcome in order to make this happen. We thank you for all your valuable comments so far, and welcome any additional feedback you have on what are the most important use cases involved with these scenarios.
This is not in the Tinkerpop specification. We have no plans to add support to this just yet.
We will revisit this in the future however.
Thank you for you feedback.
We have a sample for this use case here: https://github.com/azure-ad-b2c/samples/tree/master/policies/invite
Let us know what you think and if this fits your use case.
We continue evaluating several alternatives to provide full email customization. We are actively working on an alternative.
Unfortunately we do no yet have an ETA.
Thank you for your suggestion. This is not currently on our road map.
As suggested by others, customers are implementing this pattern using the same container with a partition key per tenant or a synthetic key with the tenant id and one or more other properties.
Will mark this as unplanned and leave open and will revisit this in future planning cycles.
Thank you for your suggestion and votes.
Agreed that the current pricing structure is not granular enough for multi-tenant SaaS product. Per-collection would be fine if smaller, auto-scaling collection tiers were available. Start cheap, autoscale and pay-for-what-you-use. Just like most other Azure products.