Azure Service Data Integration with MLW Template - #405
Conversation
979e4bf to
227556b
Compare
ran the terraform recursive and fixed it changed the cares name into sample Add adf and fix AF to use id
6634f4f to
d18fd18
Compare
|
Dexter Williams (@TechnicallyWilliams) Nicholas M. Iodice (@nmiodice) Ready for review! |
|
ML is out of my area of expertise but I gave it a good one over. Templates along with tests present no red flags. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ | |||
| # Azure Application Services | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this README correct? Looks the same as some of the app service environments but I don't see reference to any data factory integration in the document
| source = "../../modules/providers/azure/service-plan" | ||
| resource_group_name = azurerm_resource_group.app_rg.name | ||
| service_plan_name = local.func_app_sp_name | ||
| # scaling_rules = var.scaling_rules |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is not needed it can be removed, along with any referenced variables that are not necessary.
| @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ | |||
| # output "fqdns" { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove any commented code
| role_scopes = local.rbac_contributor_scopes | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| # resource "azurerm_role_assignment" "aks_acr_pull" { |
| sql_collections = local.cosmos_sql_collections | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| # //storage for ADF data prep |
| TfOptions: tfOptions, | ||
| ExpectedTfOutputCount: 21, | ||
| TfOutputAssertions: []integration.TerraformOutputValidation{ | ||
| //verifyAppServiceConfig, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove this commented section
|
|
||
| func appendKeyVaultTests(t *testing.T, description unit.ResourceDescription) { | ||
| kvBasicExpectations(t, description) | ||
| //kvAccessPolicyExpectations(t, description) |
| "module.app_insights.azurerm_application_insights.appinsights": expectedAppInsights, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| //appendAutoScaleTests(t, resourceDescription) |
| default = "Minute" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| variable "data_factory_dataset_sql_name" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like the interface to this module is changing. Why? Is that needed for this PR?
All Submissions:
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Any relevant logs, error output, etc?
(If it’s long, please paste to https://ghostbin.com/ and insert the link here.)
Other information