-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Updating mgmt/storage package version for rpStorageAccount() so that we can set SAS key permission to false #3596
Conversation
@@ -539,6 +539,9 @@ | |||
"sku": { | |||
"name": "Standard_LRS" | |||
}, | |||
"properties": { | |||
"allowSharedKeyAccess": false | |||
}, | |||
"location": "[resourceGroup().location]", | |||
"name": "[substring(parameters('storageAccountDomain'), 0, indexOf(parameters('storageAccountDomain'), '.'))]", | |||
"type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we update the apiVersion in L548 as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes! Now that I took a better look at apiVersions
, I understood that it must be updated.
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import ( | |||
mgmtkeyvault "github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/keyvault/mgmt/2019-09-01/keyvault" | |||
mgmtnetwork "github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/network/mgmt/2020-08-01/network" | |||
mgmtinsights "github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/preview/monitor/mgmt/2018-03-01/insights" | |||
mgmtstorage "github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/storage/mgmt/2019-06-01/storage" | |||
mgmtstorage "github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/storage/mgmt/2021-09-01/storage" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
L29 needs to be update as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm migrating the whole repo to the 2021 version of mgmtstorage
. I'm also updating the entry on the apiVersions
map for Microsoft.Storage
now that we have a new version (2021-09-01) of it.
L29 is about Microsoft.Insights
. I didn't use it directly during this task, so it sounds curious to me why I should change L29.
Do you mean you'd like me to upgrade the package mgmtinsights
for the whole repo too, and then change the apiVersions
map to list the new version?
It's currently on 2018-03-01 version in the imports, and the apiVersions
map states 2018-03-01 too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I meant the line with Microsoft.Storage
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, thanks! Then it's done.
I created a new PR to do the whole migration thing as I was scared to break things:
#3603
Will cleanup this PR later.
The api version of the generated arm template is still the old one. |
Which issue this PR addresses:
Fixes https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ARO-7791 in an alternative (probably better) way than this previous draft PR.
What this PR does / why we need it:
The PR updates from a 2019 to a 2021 version of the
mgmt/storage
package of Azure SDK for Go, so that we can have a new field available in the API (allowSharedKeyAccess
) and set it tofalse
for the RP storage account struct, so that when the ARM template is generated (rp_production.json
) it has the property set tofalse
accordingly.Test plan for issue:
Test steps for local, INT and VMSS related validation available on the Jira issue.
Is there any documentation that needs to be updated for this PR?
Not sure, I suppose not.
How do you know this will function as expected in production?
Answered this on this PR description, will paste here once I know more about this or once one of the PRs is chosen, as they're both proposed fixes for the same thing: #3595