Suggest using different default location than eastus2

[pamelafox]

The current code seems to default to eastus2, both from my experience and according to this code block:

azure-dev/cli/azd/pkg/account/manager.go

Line 242 in c53a984

defaultLocation := &config.Location{

Internal accounts don't have full provisioning abilities on eastus2, as I discovered when trying to deploy anything with a PostGres server, so I would suggest a different default, like eastus, or whatever is the least likely to have provisioning constraints.

It's not a big deal since it only affects internal accounts, but could save some Microsofties a few hours of head scratching.

[rajeshkamal5050]

@jongio @ellismg believe there is some rationale for us to pick eastus2 as default?

[pamelafox]

Maybe due to static web apps? I just tried deploying that to eastus and received this message:

"The provided location 'eastus' is not available for resource type 'Microsoft.Web/staticSites'. List of available regions for the resource type is 'westus2,centralus,eastus2,westeurope,eastasia,eastasiastage'

I think that constraint is true for non-internal accounts as well.

I'm going to try going with centralus as my new default and see if that runs into any provisioning constraints.

[jongio]

We don't have a region that will work for all templates. Matt included some thinking in his env spec. Related to #374 and #191

[rajeshkamal5050]

@pamelafox can we close this? given azd handles usage of allowed decorator as part of #2695 fix.

[pamelafox]

I think using @Allowed is slightly different from being able to have a different default location. I don't think I want to use @Allowed for the Postgres issue, as non-MSFT employees can deploy it fine to eastus2, but I would certainly default to a different region. I think we just had a discussion last week in the "azd extended team" chat about specifying defaults for a project, so it seems like still a valid enhancement request?