ARM provider #627
ARM provider #627
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if config.ClientID != "" && config.ClientSecret != "" && config.TenantID != "" { | ||
| cred, err := azidentity.NewClientSecretCredential(config.TenantID, config.ClientID, config.ClientSecret, nil) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we expect the users to input the plain secret in target spec? Should we use $secret to refer the plain text secret?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be typically from a $secret reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But we won't parse expression in target config? Will we do that? @iwangjintian
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think when the host loads the api config it parses the configuration expressions (so that we don't have to parse at lower levels)
| if err != nil { | ||
| return ret, err | ||
| } | ||
| err = r.analyzeDeployment(ctx, deploymentName, deploymentProp) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please explain how can we implement Get method for arm deployment? Seems we will validate whether new component change will bring new changes or not. Per my understanding, the return component spec reflects current arm resources status, can we get these statuses?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems whatif check with return error if the new component spec makes changes, but we just return ret(which stores all unchanged component), is this enough for solution-manager to judge the current state?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, we do a what-if analysis to see if ANYTHING needs to be done. If nothing needs to be done, we can return the original spec. Otherwise we'll error out to indicate some changes are needed. We don't know about what changes to make. We just know some changes are needed.
landing/public/404.html
Outdated
| @@ -180,7 +188,11 @@ <h1 class="mb-3">404</h1> | |||
| <div class="col-md-3 col-sm-6 mb-5"> | |||
| <a class="d-block h3 mb-3" href="http://localhost:1313/symphony/"> | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These doc files have conflicts. Seems these are not related to this PR, can you please revert it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note landing/public should be a submodule. I've restored it to be a submodule in this PR. Not sure how it was lost.
No description provided.