Azure Service Data Integration with MLW Template #405
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mahhanifi
changed the title
helayoty
force-pushed
the
mahanifi/new-template
branch
from
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
helayoty
force-pushed
the
mahanifi/new-template
branch
from
6634f4f
to
d18fd18
Compare
|
@TechnicallyWilliams @nmiodice Ready for review! |
mahhanifi
changed the title
|
ML is out of my area of expertise but I gave it a good one over. Templates along with tests present no red flags. |
TechnicallyWilliams
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2020
nmiodice
suggested changes
Sep 25, 2020
| @@ -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" { | |||
| 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, |
|
|
||
| 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) |
| @@ -68,34 +68,4 @@ variable "data_factory_trigger_frequency" { | |||
| description = "The trigger freqency. Valid values include Minute, Hour, Day, Week, Month. Defaults to Minute." | |||
| type = string | |||
| 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?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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