By a bicep script I created a Containter App which has now one Authentication Identity Provider.
I created also a second App regeistration whcih I want to add to this Container App
This can be done in the Azure Portal, but I want to do this in a script (PowerShell/Bicep)
Looks like that this is working:
resource containerAppConfig 'Microsoft.App/containerApps/authConfigs#2022-06-01-preview' = {
name: 'current'
parent: containerApp
properties: {
identityProviders: {
azureActiveDirectory:{
enabled: true
isAutoProvisioned: true
registration: {
clientId: adApiAppClientId
clientSecretSettingName: 'api-registry-password'
}
validation: {
allowedAudiences: [
'api://${adApiAppClientId}'
]
}
}
}
}
I am trialling the use of Bicep and container apps in my organisation and we have separated out concerns within the SAME tenant but in different subscriptions like so:
Development
Production
Management
I want to be able to deploy each of these subscriptions using Bicep scripts (individual ones per subscription) and ideally only use managed identity for security.
Within the management subscription we have an ACR which has the admin account intentionally disabled as I don't want to pull via username/password. Question one, should this be possible? As it seems that we should be able to configure an AcrPull role against the container app(s) without too much trouble.
The idea being that the moment the container app is deployed it pulls from the Acr and is actively useable. I don't want an intermediary such as Azure DevOps handling the orchestration for example.
In bicep I've successfully configured the workspace, container environment but upon deploying my actual app I'm a bit stuck - it fails for some incomprehensible error message which I'm still digging into. I've found plenty of examples using the admin/password approach but documentation for alternatives appears lacking which makes me worry if I'm after something that isn't feasible. Perhaps user identity is my solution?
My bicep script (whilst testing against admin/password) looks like this:
name: containerAppName
location: location
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
properties: {
managedEnvironmentId: containerAppEnvId
configuration: {
secrets: [
{
name: 'container-registry-password'
value: containerRegistry.listCredentials().passwords[0].value
}
]
ingress: {
external: true
targetPort: targetPort
allowInsecure: false
traffic: [
{
latestRevision: true
weight: 100
}
]
}
registries: [
{
server: '${registryName}.azurecr.io'
username: containerRegistry.listCredentials().username
passwordSecretRef: 'container-registry-password'
}
]
}
template: {
revisionSuffix: 'firstrevision'
containers: [
{
name: containerAppName
image: containerImage
resources: {
cpu: json(cpuCore)
memory: '${memorySize}Gi'
}
}
]
scale: {
minReplicas: minReplicas
maxReplicas: maxReplicas
}
}
}
}
However this is following an admin/password approach. For using managed identity, firstly do I need to put a registry entry in there?
``` registries: [
{
server: '${registryName}.azurecr.io'
username: containerRegistry.listCredentials().username
passwordSecretRef: 'container-registry-password'
}
]
If so, the listCredentials().username obviously won't work with admin/password disabled. Secondly, what would I then need in the containers section
containers: [
{
name: containerAppName
image: containerImage ??
resources: {
cpu: json(cpuCore)
memory: '${memorySize}Gi'
}
}
]
As there appears to be no mention of the need for pointing at a repository, or indeed specifying anything other than a password/admin account. Is it that my requirement is impossible as the container app needs to be provisioned before managed identity can be applied to it? Is this a chicken vs egg problem?
You could use a user-assigned identity:
Create a user assigned identity
Grant permission to the user-assigned identity
Assign the identity to the container app
# container-registry-role-assignment.bicep
param registryName string
param roleId string
param principalId string
// Get a reference to the existing registry
resource registry 'Microsoft.ContainerRegistry/registries#2021-06-01-preview' existing = {
name: registryName
}
// Create role assignment
resource roleAssignment 'Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments#2020-04-01-preview' = {
name: guid(registry.id, roleId, principalId)
scope: registry
properties: {
roleDefinitionId: subscriptionResourceId('Microsoft.Authorization/roleDefinitions', roleId)
principalId: principalId
principalType: 'ServicePrincipal'
}
}
Then from your main:
param name string
param identityName string
param environmentName string
param containerImage string
param location string = resourceGroup().location
param containerRegistrySubscriptionId string = subscription().subscriptionId
param containerRegistryResourceGroupName string = resourceGroup().name
param containerRegistryName string
// Create identtiy
resource identity 'Microsoft.ManagedIdentity/userAssignedIdentities#2022-01-31-preview' = {
name: identityName
location: location
}
// Assign AcrPull permission
module roleAssignment 'container-registry-role-assignment.bicep' = {
name: 'container-registry-role-assignment'
scope: resourceGroup(containerRegistrySubscriptionId, containerRegistryResourceGroupName)
params: {
roleId: '7f951dda-4ed3-4680-a7ca-43fe172d538d' // AcrPull
principalId: identity.properties.principalId
registryName: containerRegistryName
}
}
// Get a reference to the container app environment
resource managedEnvironment 'Microsoft.App/managedEnvironments#2022-03-01' existing = {
name: environmentName
}
// create the container app
resource containerapp 'Microsoft.App/containerApps#2022-03-01' = {
dependsOn:[
roleAssignment
]
name: name
...
identity: {
type: 'UserAssigned'
userAssignedIdentities: {
'${identity.id}': {}
}
}
properties: {
managedEnvironmentId: managedEnvironment.id
configuration: {
...
registries: [
{
server: '${containerRegistryName}.azurecr.io'
identity: identity.id
}
]
}
template: {
...
containers: [
{
name: name
image: '${containerRegistryName}.azurecr.io/${containerImage}'
...
}
]
}
}
}
How to stick app config settings to a slot via bicep?
Here is my bicep file:
var stagingSettings = [
{
name: 'AzureFunctionsJobHost__extensions__durableTask__hubName'
value: 'staging'
slotSetting: true
}
]
resource functionApp 'Microsoft.Web/sites/slots#2018-11-01' = {
name: name
kind: kind
location: location
properties: {
clientAffinityEnabled: true
enabled: true
httpsOnly: true
serverFarmId: resourceId('Microsoft.Web/serverfarms', servicePlanName)
siteConfig: {
use32BitWorkerProcess : false
appSettings: stagingSettings
}
}
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
}
On deploying this code, I don't see app config settings stick to a slot:
checkbox is not checked. What am I missing?
You need to create a slotConfigNames resource:
Names for connection strings, application settings, and external Azure storage account configuration
identifiers to be marked as sticky to the deployment slot and not moved during a swap operation.
This is valid for all deployment slots in an app.
Something like that should work:
param functionAppName string
resource functionApp 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2018-11-01' existing = {
name: functionAppName
}
resource functionApps 'Microsoft.Web/sites/config#2021-03-01' = {
name: 'slotConfigNames'
parent: functionApp
properties: {
// Sticky app settings
appSettingNames: [
'AzureFunctionsJobHost__extensions__durableTask__hubName'
]
}
}
I'm trying to deploy a .NET Core 3.1 Azure App Service on Linux using a Bicep template from Azure CLI. The app service and corresponding app service plan are deployed correctly but the app service stack settings are empty on the Azure portal and I have to set these manually. I tried setting the metadata property on the 'Microsoft.Web/sites' resource and also on the 'Microsoft.Web/sites/config' resource, but the result was the same.
This is my app service plan:
resource appServicePlan 'Microsoft.Web/serverfarms#2021-02-01' = {
name: 'MyAppService'
location: resourceGroup().location
properties: {
reserved: true
}
sku: {
name: 'P1v2'
}
kind: 'linux'
}
Here is my first attempt to set the stack using 'Microsoft.Web/sites' as suggested here:
https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/3314
resource appService 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2021-02-01' = {
name: 'MyApp'
location: resourceGroup().location
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
kind: 'app'
properties: {
enabled: true
serverFarmId: appServicePlan.id
siteConfig: {
linuxFxVersion: 'dotnet|3.1'
appCommandLine: 'dotnet MyApp.dll'
metadata: [
{
name: 'CURRENT_STACK'
value: 'dotnetcore'
}
]
}
}
}
Here is my second attempt to set the stack using 'Microsoft.Web/sites/config' as suggested here:
Bicep - How to config Runtime Stack to Azure App Service (Bicep version 0.4)
resource appService 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2021-02-01' = {
name: 'MyApp'
location: resourceGroup().location
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
kind: 'app'
properties: {
enabled: true
serverFarmId: appServicePlan.id
siteConfig: {
linuxFxVersion: 'dotnet|3.1'
appCommandLine: 'dotnet MyApp.dll'
}
}
resource webConfig 'config' = {
name: 'web'
properties: {
metadata: [
{
name: 'CURRENT_STACK'
value: 'dotnetcore'
}
]
}
}
}
The result is the same. The deployment is completed with the following warning:
Warning BCP037: The property "metadata" is not allowed on objects of
type "SiteConfig". Permissible properties include
"acrUseManagedIdentityCreds", "acrUserManagedIdentityID", "alwaysOn",
"apiDefinition", "apiManagementConfig", "autoHealEnabled",
"autoHealRules", "autoSwapSlotName", "azureStorageAccounts",
"connectionStrings", "cors", "defaultDocuments",
"detailedErrorLoggingEnabled", "documentRoot", "experiments",
"ftpsState", "functionAppScaleLimit",
"functionsRuntimeScaleMonitoringEnabled", "handlerMappings",
"healthCheckPath", "http20Enabled", "httpLoggingEnabled",
"ipSecurityRestrictions", "javaContainer", "javaContainerVersion",
"javaVersion", "keyVaultReferenceIdentity", "limits", "loadBalancing",
"localMySqlEnabled", "logsDirectorySizeLimit", "managedPipelineMode",
"managedServiceIdentityId", "minimumElasticInstanceCount",
"minTlsVersion", "netFrameworkVersion", "nodeVersion",
"numberOfWorkers", "phpVersion", "powerShellVersion",
"preWarmedInstanceCount", "publicNetworkAccess", "publishingUsername",
"push", "pythonVersion", "remoteDebuggingEnabled",
"remoteDebuggingVersion", "requestTracingEnabled",
"requestTracingExpirationTime", "scmIpSecurityRestrictions",
"scmIpSecurityRestrictionsUseMain", "scmMinTlsVersion", "scmType",
"tracingOptions", "use32BitWorkerProcess", "virtualApplications",
"vnetName", "vnetPrivatePortsCount", "vnetRouteAllEnabled",
"websiteTimeZone", "webSocketsEnabled", "windowsFxVersion",
"xManagedServiceIdentityId". If this is an inaccuracy in the
documentation, please report it to the Bicep Team.
[https://aka.ms/bicep-type-issues]
The resources are deployed, but the app service stack setting is blank and I have to set it manually to make it work.
I know that in the ARM template this is set on the CURRENT_STACK property of the Microsoft.Web/sites/config metadata (as suggested here https://cloudstep.io/2020/11/18/undocumented-arm-oddities-net-core-app-services/). However, this doesn't seem to be supported (yet) in Bicep. If anyone has found a working solution, please post it here.
Thanks.
The Metadata parameter is not available anymore in the SiteConfig. The stack setting can be mentioned LinuxFxVersion.
So, solution will be Instead of using dotnet|3.1 , You should use DOTNETCORE|3.1.The over all code will be as below:
resource appServicePlan 'Microsoft.Web/serverfarms#2021-02-01' = {
name: 'MyAppService'
location: resourceGroup().location
properties: {
reserved: true
}
sku: {
name: 'P1v2'
}
kind: 'linux'
}
resource appService 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2021-02-01' = {
name: 'anumantestapp'
location: resourceGroup().location
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
kind: 'app'
properties: {
enabled: true
serverFarmId: appServicePlan.id
siteConfig: {
linuxFxVersion: 'DOTNETCORE|3.1'
appCommandLine: 'dotnet MyApp.dll'
}
}
}
Ouptut:
I am currently trying to deploy out a resource group using azure bicep, however, I am running into an issue using key vault for my azure app service. I would like to know if I am actually doing this the correct way. I have a main bicep file that is along the lines of:
// params removed for brevity...
targetScope = 'subscription'
resource rg 'Microsoft.Resources/resourceGroups#2021-04-01' = {
name: 'rg-${appName}-${region}'
location: 'centralus'
}
module appServicePlan 'appplan.bicep' = {
params: {
sku: appServicePlanSku
appName: appName
region: region
}
scope: rg
name: 'AppServicePlanDeploy'
}
module keyVault 'keyvault.bicep' = {
params: {
keyVaultName: keyVaultName
sqlPassword: sqlServerPassword
webSiteManagedId: webSite.outputs.webAppPrincipal
}
scope: rg
name: 'KeyVaultDeploy'
dependsOn: [
webSite
]
}
module ai 'ai.bicep' = {
scope: rg
name: 'ApplicationInsightsDeploy'
params: {
name: appName
region: region
keyVaultName: keyVault.outputs.keyVaultName
}
dependsOn: [
keyVault
]
}
resource kv 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults#2019-09-01' existing = {
name: keyVaultName
scope: rg
}
module sql 'sqlserver.bicep' = {
scope: rg
name: 'SQLServerDeploy'
params: {
appName: appName
region: region
sqlPassword: kv.getSecret('sqlPassword')
sqlCapacitity: sqlCapacitity
sqlSku: sqlSku
sqlTier: sqlTier
}
dependsOn: [
keyVault
]
}
module webSite 'site.bicep' = {
params: {
appName: appName
region: region
keyVaultName: keyVaultName
serverFarmId: appServicePlan.outputs.appServicePlanId
}
scope: rg
name: 'AppServiceDeploy'
dependsOn: [
appServicePlan
]
}
My question comes with the implementation of the site.bicep, I started off by passing the secret uri from exported variables and creating the web app last as app insights, sql, etc... all need to be setup and in keyvault before we use their exported secret uri to construct a config. I had something along the lines of:
site.bicep (before):
properties: {
serverFarmId: serverFarmId
keyVaultReferenceIdentity: userAssignedId
siteConfig: {
appSettings: [
{
name: 'APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING'
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${appInsightsConnectionString})'
}
{
name: 'APPINSIGHTS_INSTRUMENTATIONKEY'
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${appInsightsKey})'
}
]
netFrameworkVersion: 'v5.0'
}
}
The only problem with this implementation is that the key vault MUST be constructed before the website because sql, ai, and the other services will store their values inside of the key vault for the web app to consume by their respective uris. The issue with this is that the KeyVault rightfully so has no idea which azure service to let access it's keys.
My question is the solution of constructing the web app before the key vault the only way to beat this problem? I am using managed identities on the web app and would like to continue doing so if possible. My final solution ended up somewhat like this:
site.bicep (final)
// params removed for brevity...
resource webApplication 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2020-12-01' = {
name: 'app-${appName}-${region}'
location: resourceGroup().location
tags: {
'hidden-related:${resourceGroup().id}/providers/Microsoft.Web/serverfarms/appServicePlan': 'Resource'
}
identity: {
type: 'SystemAssigned'
}
properties: {
serverFarmId: serverFarmId
siteConfig: {
appSettings: [
{
name: 'APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING'
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${keyVaultName}.vault.azure.net/secrets/aiConnectionString)'
}
{
name: 'APPINSIGHTS_INSTRUMENTATIONKEY'
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${keyVaultName}.vault.azure.net/secrets/aiInstrumentationKey)'
}
{
name: 'AngularConfig:ApplicationInsightsKey'
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${keyVaultName}.vault.azure.net/secrets/aiInstrumentationKey)'
}
]
netFrameworkVersion: 'v5.0'
}
}
}
output webAppPrincipal string = webApplication.identity.principalId
And the KeyVault which will take a dependsOn webSite
keyVault.bicep(final):
resource keyVault 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults#2019-09-01' = {
name: keyVaultName
location: resourceGroup().location
properties: {
enabledForDeployment: true
enabledForTemplateDeployment: true
enabledForDiskEncryption: true
enableRbacAuthorization: true
tenantId: subscription().tenantId
sku: {
name: 'standard'
family: 'A'
}
accessPolicies: [
{
tenantId: subscription().tenantId
objectId: webSiteManagedId
permissions: {
keys: [
'get'
]
secrets: [
'list'
'get'
]
}
}
]
}
}
Just treat your accessPolicies as separate resource and add them when both Key Vault and App Service are created. Same applies for Config section and Connection Strings. Check documentation here.
In ARM templates you can achieve same effect using nested templates. In Bicep it is kind the same, but you declare them as separate resource that usually contains parent name (e.g. name: '${kv.name}/add', name: '${webSite.name}/connectionstrings')
Sample
Step 1: Create an App Service without config section
resource webSite 'Microsoft.Web/sites#2020-12-01' = {
name: webSiteName
location: location
properties: {
serverFarmId: hostingPlan.id
siteConfig:{
netFrameworkVersion: 'v5.0'
}
}
identity: {
type:'SystemAssigned'
}
}
Step 2: Create Key Vault without access policies
resource kv 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults#2019-09-01' = {
name: keyVaultName
location: location
properties:{
sku:{
family: 'A'
name: 'standard'
}
tenantId: tenantId
enabledForTemplateDeployment: true
accessPolicies:[
]
}
}
Step 3: Create new access policy and reference Web Apps Managed Identity
resource keyVaultAccessPolicy 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/accessPolicies#2021-06-01-preview' = {
name: '${kv.name}/add'
properties: {
accessPolicies: [
{
tenantId: tenantId
objectId: webSite.identity.principalId
permissions: {
keys: [
'get'
]
secrets: [
'list'
'get'
]
}
}
]
}
}
Step 4: Update Webb app config section
resource webSiteConnectionStrings 'Microsoft.Web/sites/config#2020-06-01' = {
name: '${webSite.name}/connectionstrings'
properties: {
DefaultConnection: {
value: '#Microsoft.KeyVault(SecretUri=${keyVaultName}.vault.azure.net/secrets/aiConnectionString)'
type: 'SQLAzure'
}
}
}
One solution could be to use User Assigend Identity instead of System Assigned. Then you would deploy the following:
Deploy a user assigend identity
Key Vault and assign permissions for user assigned identity
Deploy web app with user assigned identity and read / write secrets
User assigned is independent of the resources and so you avoid your chicken and egg problem.
More:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/templates/microsoft.managedidentity/userassignedidentities?tabs=bicep
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/managed-identities-azure-resources/overview
You should split up three parts of your deployment into separate resources:
Deploy the Key Vault - without any access policies!
Deploy the App Service - with the SystemAssigned Identity, but without the app settings
Deploy the Key Vault Access Policy for the MSI
Deploy the App Settings