search

Azure / bicep-registry-modules

Bicep registry modules
MIT License
428 stars 284 forks source link

New directory under storage account container #2579

Closed gerrynicol closed 2 days ago

gerrynicol commented 2 weeks ago

Check for previous/existing GitHub issues

Issue Type?

Feature Request

Module Name

avm/res/storage/storage-account

(Optional) Module Version

No response

Description

Looking to see if there could be a change made to the storage module to allow the creation of directory's under a container

(Optional) Correlation Id

No response

microsoft-github-policy-service[bot] commented 2 weeks ago

[!IMPORTANT] The "Needs: Triage :mag:" label must be removed once the triage process is complete!

[!TIP] For additional guidance on how to triage this issue/PR, see the BRM Issue Triage documentation.

matebarabas commented 2 weeks ago

@ktremain, can you please take a look at this issue? Thanks!

CC: @fblix

microsoft-github-policy-service[bot] commented 1 week ago

[!WARNING] Tagging the AVM Core Team (@Azure/avm-core-team-technical-bicep) due to a module owner or contributor having not responded to this issue within 3 business days. The AVM Core Team will attempt to contact the module owners/contributors directly.

[!TIP]

  • To prevent further actions to take effect, the "Status: Response Overdue 🚩" label must be removed, once this issue has been responded to.
  • To avoid this rule being (re)triggered, the ""Needs: Triage :mag:" label must be removed as part of the triage process (when the issue is first responded to)!
ktremain commented 1 week ago

@ChrisSidebotham @AlexanderSehr Is this a candidate for a Utility module?

jtracey93 commented 1 week ago

Hey @ktremain,

As per the definition of a utility module here this does not fit the purpose of a utility module, IMHO.

I would say if this cannot be done from the control plane side of things for the storage account module and is a data plane action, a deployment script could be used, but id just suggest calling that as a separate module call instead with the already published options for deployment scripts.

AlexanderSehr commented 1 week ago

I guess there is some wiggle room if we'd consider data plane operations not as the 'deployment of Azure resources' but it would be an implementation for a very specific use case, that is, to create folders without any content. I'm not sure if we'd want to go there 💭 If we were, I'd wander what else would make sense for such a script to do. Setting ACLs would probably make sense?

The challenge will eventually be that custom code is imperative instead of declarative which is what IaC wants to be. Naturally, utility modules are a prime candidate for imperative code - but where should you draw the line? Should you draw a line?

Happy to discuss this further :)

ktremain commented 2 days ago

@gerrynicol As per the other conversations here, this feature request doesn't fit into the existing Storage Account Resource Module, and would have to be done as a separate script/deployment.