Closed uday31in closed 1 year ago
Looks good to me. Main observation (and this is a slight extension to the original conversation around consistency) is that it's difficult to differentiate between networking policies and whether they are intended to be for "hub & spoke", "Virtual WAN", or "generic". If we can address this as part of this issue, that would be a definite bonus!
@krowlandson Does the notation of "Deny" vs "Deploy" help?
Deploy-VHub Deploy-VNet Deploy-VNet-HubSpoke Deploy-VWan
@uday31in Should we have this all lowercase? Like it is in the CAF Resource-Naming best practice?
vnet-shared-eastus2-001
vnet-prod-westus-001
vnet-client-eastus2-001
Trigger ADO Sync 1
Trigger ADO Sync 2
Closing as standardised in contribution guide: https://aka.ms/alz/contribute
Describe the solution you'd like
As a part of this issue, I would like to invite proposal for Standardising Naming convention for Policies used in Enterprise-Scale that can be enforced as a part of pull request with following design goals in mind:
Allow iterative development of artefacts independently in respective repos https://github.com/Azure/Enterprise-Scale and https://github.com/Azure/terraform-azurerm-caf-enterprise-scale
Ensure consistency and minimise breaking changes in Terraform module for ES in https://github.com/Azure/terraform-azurerm-caf-enterprise-scale
Proposal for Naming Convention
Implementation options:
Pros:
Pros: