Open AlexanderSehr opened 9 months ago
To the question: I don't see any advantage in that effort, I'd suggest to keep all modules in the modules folder as they are right now. We're not planning to introduce any ptn modules in CARML anyway, nor maintaining any constructs going forward
Just thinking about the experience if a customer would want to onboard either. It would finally make sense of that 'constructs' thing. We can also push this back, but I think it's a reasonable use case. More to discuss ^^. I could see either argument
@AlexanderSehr hence I guess we can now close this as well
Hey @eriqua, I thought so too. The only reason I eventually didn't was that there are actually some points in here we would need to discuss for any upcoming CI updates, that is, the 2 tickboxes that are not yet checked 😄 However, as we'd presumably remember those anyways when we tackle the CI, we can of course also close it ... how much do we trust our memory?
@alexandersehr we don't (trust our memory). However if you agree I'd be more keen to open those issues to be discussed separately and close this one, since its title may be misleading
We can do that. I assigned the issue to the 'CI issues' milestone for the time being. And once we get around to actually approach the topic we can split it up. I just can't be bothered right now - but I'm sure with these comments down here, we'll know what to do ;)
Required changes (AVM ref)
res
&ptn
folder in themodules
folder?e2e
tests
foldermain.bicep
inmain.test.bicep
.shared/.scripts
.shared/.templates
min
test folder todefaults
common
test folder tomax
common/max
folder and name itwaf-aligned
(don't forget do update the serviceShort too - if possible)Set-AVMModule
utility (ref #4067)Set-ModuleReadMe
and related scriptsmodule.test.ps1
similar to AVM in theutilities/pipelines
foldermodule.test.bicep
modules/.shared
folder