Simon Luckenuik

My feedback

  1. 385 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    49 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi all,

    We’re pleased to announce a public preview of our Key Vault references feature, which you can learn more about here: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/simplifying-security-for-serverless-and-web-apps-with-azure-functions-and-app-service/

    There are some limitations to the initial preview, but we’re hoping to address those very soon. We’re looking forward to your feedback!

    Thank you,
    Matthew, Azure Functions team

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  2. 51 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  3. 73 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Moving this work item to unplanned, as it is clear that this request is no for a global throughput limit.

    We do now offer the ability to limit your maximum instances in the Premium plan, which will allow you to avoid swamping downstream resources. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-premium-plan#plan-and-sku-settings

    We prioritized that above a max call per X limit, because our only control to limit throughput is to outright deny some number of requests above a threshold.

    Keep the feedback coming!
    Alex
    Azure Functions Team

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  4. 24 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is an awesome idea, and we’re exploring a few options to make it a reality.
    However, the 600 connection limit per instance should be enough for most applications if you’re reusing or closing connections. If you truly need 600 open connections you are likely to run into the 10 minute timeout per execution.
    Even after we add this you will still need to be mindful of your connection management.

    Keep the votes coming!
    —Alex

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  5. 367 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  8 comments  ·  API Management » Integration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. 579 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    16 comments  ·  API Management » Defining APIs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. 591 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    12 comments  ·  API Management » Defining APIs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi all – we could really use more information on the use cases you would like us to deliver with this feature. To quote Darrel’s post below:

    Are you looking for some kind of UI in the portal to enable developers to subscribe to webhooks exposed by APIs?
    Or are you looking for the additional security provided API Management to limit what events a user can subscribe to?
    Do you want to correlate the API Management subscription ID with registered webhooks?
    Any information you can give about the scenarios you would like help with would be great.

    Many thanks

  8. 2,859 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    119 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi folks,

    We have shipped a public preview of integration with AAD DS: https://azure.microsoft.com/blog/azure-active-directory-integration-for-smb-access-now-in-public-preview/

    What we have in preview is a first step along a much larger roadmap for integration with AAD/AD for authentication and authorization. As the blog post says, this initial preview is really about Windows cloud VM access to the Azure file share with an AAD identity. Future refreshes to this feature will add non-Windows (Linux, macOS, etc) support, and the ability to mount the Azure file shares on-premises with your AAD identity. You can learn more about this in our Ignite session as well (at around 22:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMzh2M66E9o

    We’ll keep you updated on our progress. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to continue posting feedback on this feature below.

    Thanks,

    Will Gries
    Program Manager, Azure Files

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  9. 784 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    21 comments  ·  Storage » Blobs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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 azurestoragefeedback@microsoft.com.

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  10. 1,013 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  11. 527 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    62 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » B2C  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Due to various technical limitations, the first iteration of the customer-owned domains functionality will not be available for a few more months. We will provide an update as soon as we can get a more specific ETA.

    If you are looking to use custom domains to use javascript, we are now looking to enable that experience by providing a new (non-customizable) domain. Please look for updates here: https://feedback.azure.com/forums/169401-azure-active-directory/suggestions/15493536-add-support-for-javascript-inside-the-custom-ui-br

    /Parakh

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  12. 83 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  13. 762 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    44 comments  ·  Notification Hubs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  14. 991 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    64 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » B2C  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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.

    /Parakh


    Old message:
    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?

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  15. 28 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  16. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  17. 361 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. 43 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  19. 563 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    28 comments  ·  Web Apps  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  20. 129 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  7 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base