Related
I was following the repo for separate parameter file to each env as defined in the https://github.com/Azure/bicep/discussions/4586
I tried the separate parameters file for dev, stage, prod but the value assignment in main module variable remains flagged by intelligence even though it exists same param exist in the respective parameter file.
Other approach I tried is loadjson variable, but it does not show auto completion for items under subnet block as it stopes right after value.
Maybe I am overthinking and not applying the correct approach, Perhaps I should ignore intellisense and try deploying by applying parameter and hope it will auto pick correct value during the deployment param check.
Here is my parameter file and the same value applies to each env param json.
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2015-01-01/deploymentParameters.json#",
"contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
"parameters": {
"department": {
"value": "finance"
},
"saAccountCount": {
"value": 1
},
"vmCount": {
"value": 1
},
"locationIndex": { //idenx 1 = app server, 2=AD, 3=Tool server, 4= dchp server
"value": 1
},
"appRoleIndex": { //idenx 1 = westus2, 2= westus, 3= eastus, 4=centralus, 5=uswest3
"value": 1
},
"appRole": {
"value": {
"Applicatoin Server": "ap",
"Active Directory": "dc",
"Tool server": "tool",
"DHCP server": "dhcp"
}
},
"environment": {
"value": "dev"
},
"addressPrefixes": {
"value": [
"172.16.0.0/20"
]
},
"dnsServers": {
"value": [
"1.1.1.1",
"4.4.4.4"
]
},
"locationList": {
"value": {
"westus2": "azw2",
"westus": "azw",
"Eastus": "aze",
"CentralUS": "azc",
"westus3": "azw3"
}
},
"subnets": {
"value": [
{
"name": "frontend",
"subnetPrefix": "172.16.2.0/24",
"delegation": "Microsoft.Web/serverfarms",
"privateEndpointNetworkPolicies": "disabled",
"serviceEndpoints": [
{
"service": "Microsoft.KeyVault",
"locations": [
"*"
]
},
{
"service": "Microsoft.Web",
"locations": [
"*"
]
}
]
},
{
"name": "backend",
"subnetPrefix": "172.16.3.0/24",
"delegation": "Microsoft.Web/serverfarms",
"privateEndpointNetworkPolicies": "enabled",
"serviceEndpoints": [
{
"service": "Microsoft.KeyVault",
"locations": [
"*"
]
},
{
"service": "Microsoft.Web",
"locations": [
"*"
]
},
{
"service": "Microsoft.AzureCosmosDB",
"locations": [
"*"
]
}
]
}
]
}
}
}
You appear to be attempting to deploy an Azure Resource Management (ARM) template using a parameter file.
The parameter file is used to pass values to the ARM template during deployment. The parameter file must use the same types as the ARM template and can only include values for the ARM template's parameters.
You will receive an error if the parameter file contains extra parameters that do not match the ARM template's parameters.
In the same deployment process, you can use both inline parameters and a local parameter file. If you specify a parameter's value in both the local parameter file and inline, the inline value takes priority.
Refer to create a parameter file of an ARM template
About the different parameters file for dev, stage, and prod, it's likely that the parameter file is not correctly linked to the ARM template.
You can deploy the ARM template with the parameter file to determine if it will automatically select the proper value during the deployment parameter check.
Regarding the loadjson variable, it is possible that the loadjson variable is not properly formatted.
You can double-check the loadjson variable's format to ensure it's proper.
After a workaround on this, I created a sample parameter.json file for a webapp to deploy in a production environment and that worked for me.
Note: Alternatively, You can use az deployment group create with a parameters file and deploy into Azure to avoid these conflicts.
I have an ARM template which syncs secret value from source Keyvault into Destination one.
I also want to sync secret tags, but ARM reference that I use for 'sourceKV.secret.tags' retrieval does not work
[reference(resourceId('subscriptionId', 'resourceGroup', 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/secrets', 'SourceKV', 'Secret'), '2021-04-01-preview', 'Full').tags.tagName]
any ideas what can be the issue, or what is the correct form to retrieve tags during ARM template deployment?
These work for me:
"outputs": {
"tags": {
"type": "string",
"value": "[reference('/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/yyyy/providers/Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/zzzz/secrets/mysecret', '2022-07-01', 'Full').tags]"
},
"tagValue": {
"type": "string",
"value": "[reference('/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/yyyy/providers/Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/zzzz/secrets/mysecret', '2022-07-01', 'Full').tags.hello]"
},
"tagValue2": {
"type": "string",
"value": "[reference(resourceId(subscription().subscriptionId, resourceGroup().name, 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/secrets', 'xxxx', 'mysecret'), '2021-04-01-preview', 'Full').tags.hello]"
}
}
Will result in:
"outputs": {
"tagValue": {
"type": "String",
"value": "world"
},
"tagValue2": {
"type": "String",
"value": "world"
},
"tags": {
"type": "Object",
"value": {
"hello": "world"
}
}
}
Also works with the API version you used. It is important that you use 'Full', otherwise you won't get the tags. Note that you can use this syntax anywhere in your template. I just used it in the outputs because it is good for testing.
As I found out it is not possible to use Reference function for setting tags property value for keyvault as valid usages state
reference func only works if it is used inside properties block or for outputs; but as tags are not part of properties instead of returning value reference fun returns just string "reference(resource...)"
I am looking for a way to convert an array (e.g. of strings) into one object, where the properties are generated from the array values.
Use case: I want to generate a tags object with links to resources, based on a list of resource names. I need to do this, to link App Service resources to an Application Insights resource.
The list of resources could be supplied using a parameter:
"parameters": {
"appServices": {
"type": "array",
"metadata": {
"description": "Names of app services to link this application insights resource to via hidden tags"
}
}
}
Sample input:
['appName1', 'appName2', 'appName3']
Sample output:
"tags":
{
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName1'))]": "Resource",
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName2'))]": "Resource",
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName3'))]": "Resource"
}
I know you can use copy to loop over arrays but that will create an array of objects and not a single object (which is required for tags), for example:
[
{
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName1'))]": "Resource"
},
{
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName2'))]": "Resource"
},
{
"[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', 'appName3'))]": "Resource"
}
]
It would be possible to use union to merge those objects again, but that function requires you to hardcode the objects you want to merge, so it does not work when you have an input with variable length.
What I am looking for is a way to do this in a dynamic way.
There is no direct option to convert array to object.
But here's a hack to achieve what you need. This will work for array of any length.
Steps:
append hidden-link text to service names
convert array to string
replace necessary symbols and make it a valid json string.
use json() to convert string to object
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2019-04-01/deploymentTemplate.json#",
"contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
"parameters": {
"appServices": {
"type": "array",
"metadata": {
"description": "Names of app services to link this application insights resource to via hidden tags"
},
"defaultValue": [ "appName1", "appName2", "appName3" ]
}
},
"functions": [],
"variables": {
"copy": [
{
"name": "as",
"count": "[length(parameters('appServices'))]",
"input": "[concat('hidden-link:', resourceId('Microsoft.Web/sites/', parameters('appServices')[copyIndex('as')]))]"
}
],
"0": "[string(variables('as'))]",
"1": "[replace(variables('0'), '[', '{')]",
"2": "[replace(variables('1'), '\",', '\":\"Resource\",')]",
"3": "[replace(variables('2'), '\"]', '\":\"Resource\"}')]"
},
"resources": [],
"outputs": {
"op1": {
"type": "object",
"value": "[json(variables('3'))]"
}
}
}
Now that lambdas have been added to bicep you can convert arrays to objects using reduce. Note that the array you reduce must consist of object items. If it doesn't you can convert it to an object using map.
// With array of objects
var names = [
{
name: 'foo'
id: 'foo-id'
}
{
name: 'bar'
id: 'bar-id'
}
]
var nameIds = reduce(names, {}, (cur, next) => union(cur, {
'${next.name}': next.id
}))
output test object = nameIds
// With array of strings
var names = [
'foo'
'bar'
]
var nameMaps = map(names, (name) => {name: name})
var nameIds = reduce(nameMaps, {}, (cur, next) => union(cur, {
'${next.name}': next.name
}))
output test object = nameIds
I'm not sure if this is the best approach to this problem.
Tags are supposed to be metadata about a specific object/service. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply a tag (say your system name, environment, etc..) and then run a query against azure on that tag?
This should achieve the same result pulling back all related resources.
I don't know if it is still relevant, but since 2021 it is possible to do with items() function
Does the ARM template offers a way to define a JSON object inline, as a template function parameter?
Something that could look like this, where I am mixing references, Azure template functions and JSON object.
"value": "[concat(reference('ArrayMaker').outputs.fooBarArray.value],
[{ "cat": "Tom", "mouse" : "Jerry"}, { "cat":"Garfield", "mouse":"[reference('MouseTrap').outputs.mouseTrap.value]"} ] )]"
Using variables would seem to be a natural fit for this, but since the value is constructed from a reference, variables can't be used.
well, not natively. you can hack around with nested deployments, something like this:
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2015-01-01/deploymentTemplate.json#",
"contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
"parameters": {
"garfiled": {
"type": "string"
},
"catData": {
"type": "object",
"defaultValue": {
"cat": "Tom"
}
}
},
"variables": {
"cat": { <<< if you can\need to construct whole variable in the nested template
"cat": "Garfield",
"mouse": "[parameters('garfiled')]"
},
"t&j": { <<< if you need to pass in part of the variable to the nested template, you can also create another variable to create an object of a proper structure to union with existing object
"mouse": "Jerry"
}
},
"resources": [],
"outputs": {
"garfiled": {
"type": "object",
"value": "[variables('cat')]"
},
"t&j": {
"type": "object",
"value": "[union(variables('t&j'), parameters('catData'))]"
}
}
}
You would then use nested template to pass reference to this template and output the result.
For context, I currently have a Data Factory v2 pipeline with a ForEach Activity that calls a Copy Activity. The Copy Activity simply copies data from an FTP server to a blob storage container.
Here is the pipeline json file :
{
"name": "pipeline1",
"properties": {
"activities": [
{
"name": "ForEach1",
"type": "ForEach",
"typeProperties": {
"items": {
"value": "#pipeline().parameters.InputParams",
"type": "Expression"
},
"isSequential": true,
"activities": [
{
"name": "Copy1",
"type": "Copy",
"policy": {
"timeout": "7.00:00:00",
"retry": 0,
"retryIntervalInSeconds": 30,
"secureOutput": false
},
"typeProperties": {
"source": {
"type": "FileSystemSource",
"recursive": true
},
"sink": {
"type": "BlobSink"
},
"enableStaging": false,
"cloudDataMovementUnits": 0
},
"inputs": [
{
"referenceName": "FtpDataset",
"type": "DatasetReference",
"parameters": {
"FtpFileName": "#item().FtpFileName",
"FtpFolderPath": "#item().FtpFolderPath"
}
}
],
"outputs": [
{
"referenceName": "BlobDataset",
"type": "DatasetReference",
"parameters": {
"BlobFileName": "#item().BlobFileName",
"BlobFolderPath": "#item().BlobFolderPath"
}
}
]
}
]
}
}
],
"parameters": {
"InputParams": {
"type": "Array",
"defaultValue": [
{
"FtpFolderPath": "/Folder1/",
"FtpFileName": "#concat('File_',formatDateTime(utcnow(), 'yyyyMMdd'), '.txt')",
"BlobFolderPath": "blobfolderpath",
"BlobFileName": "blobfile1"
},
{
"FtpFolderPath": "/Folder2/",
"FtpFileName": "#concat('File_',formatDateTime(utcnow(), 'yyyyMMdd'), '.txt')",
"BlobFolderPath": "blobfolderpath",
"BlobFileName": "blobfile2"
}
]
}
}
},
"type": "Microsoft.DataFactory/factories/pipelines"
}
The issue I am having is that when specifying pipeline parameters, it seems I cannot use system variables and functions the same way I can when for example specifying folder paths for a blob storage dataset.
The consequence of this is that formatDateTime(utcnow(), 'yyyyMMdd') is not being interpreted as function calls but rather the actual string with value formatDateTime(utcnow(), 'yyyyMMdd').
To counter this I am guessing I should be using a trigger to execute my pipeline and pass the trigger's execution time as a parameter to the pipeline like trigger().startTime but is this the only way? Am I simply doing something wrong in my pipeline's JSON?
This should work:
File_#{formatDateTime(utcnow(), 'yyyyMMdd')}
Or complex paths as well:
rootfolder/subfolder/#{formatDateTime(utcnow(),'yyyy')}/#{formatDateTime(utcnow(),'MM')}/#{formatDateTime(utcnow(),'dd')}/#{formatDateTime(utcnow(),'HH')}
You can't put a dynamic expression in the default value. You should define this expression and function either when you creating a trigger, or when you define dataset parameters in sink/source in copy activity.
So either you create dataset property FtpFileName with some default value in source dataset, and then in copy activity, you can in source category to specify that dynamic expression.
Another way is to define pipeline parameter, and then to add dynamic expression to that pipeline parameter when you are defining a trigger. Hope this is a clear answer to you. :)
Default value of parameters cannot be expressions. They must be literal strings.
You could use trigger to achieve this. Or you could extract the common part of your expressions and just put literal values into the foreach items.