Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Compute: costs values is not returned for ResourceSKU #6574

Closed
yaohaizh opened this issue Jul 9, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

Compute: costs values is not returned for ResourceSKU #6574

yaohaizh opened this issue Jul 9, 2019 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
Compute Service Attention This issue is responsible by Azure service team.

Comments

@yaohaizh
Copy link
Contributor

yaohaizh commented Jul 9, 2019

There is field defined in the swagger spec for sku's costs: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/compute/resource-manager/Microsoft.Compute/stable/2019-04-01/skus.json, but can not find this values from the service return responses.
Related issue:
Azure/azure-libraries-for-net#718

@yaohaizh yaohaizh added the Service Attention This issue is responsible by Azure service team. label Jul 10, 2019
@mjconnection
Copy link

Hey thanks for reporting this issue. We are sending this to the correct team to do some additional research.

@hyonholee - Spoke to @Drewm3 and he will be looking into this issue.

@Drewm3
Copy link
Member

Drewm3 commented Jul 19, 2019

This is by design. There are a set of standard SKU definitions in the swagger, but only though documented here for compute are supported today: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/compute/resourceskus/list]

@Drewm3 Drewm3 closed this as completed Jul 19, 2019
@yaohaizh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just wonder should the swagger spec need change to reflect this design?

@qub1n
Copy link

qub1n commented Jul 19, 2019

@qub1n
Copy link

qub1n commented Jul 19, 2019

This is by design. There are a set of standard SKU definitions in the swagger, but only though documented here for compute are supported today: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/compute/resourceskus/list]

Why this desing?

azure-libraries-for-net team does not want to add support for Cost API without having it in swagger.
On the other hand it is by design that it is not in swagger?

So what is the correct approach to accessing the Costs?

@Drewm3
Copy link
Member

Drewm3 commented Sep 19, 2019

The reason for the current design is the fact that there is not a commerce provided API to get the cost of a specific type of resource that is available consistently through all channels of Azure customers. For example there is an API that works for Azure customers who have signed up through the Azure Portal, but that API does not work for Azure customers who are paying through a mechanism called an Enterprise Agreement. Within Azure VMs we are willing to change this design if/when there is a consistent way for us to provide a reference which all customers can use to get the price of the VM size, but we are unable to provide multiple configuration details for the multiple different methods required to get the price of a resource today.

@qub1n
Copy link

qub1n commented Sep 19, 2019

ok, thanks for explaining.

leni-msft pushed a commit to leni-msft/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this issue May 13, 2022
…6572)

* Adds base for updating Microsoft.Confluent from version stable/2021-12-01 to version 2022-03-01

* Updates readme

* Updates API version in new specs and examples

* Removing maxLength + fixing linting issues (Azure#6574)

* Removing maxLength + fixing linting issue

* Updating confluent.json for Swagger Linting fix

https://portal.azure-devex-tools.com/amekpis/linting/detail?errorId=9DA38F21-FFDA-4909-A86F-189CC09155D7

* Update confluent.json

* LintDiff, changing api-version type

* Update confluent.json (Azure#6674)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Compute Service Attention This issue is responsible by Azure service team.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants