Replies: 2 comments
-
Actually, maybe this could be solved by using a string like But, this is just a work around for me, because the next problem I would have is the module webAppDeployment 'br/public:avm/res/web/site:0.3.0' = {
name: 'webapp-deployment-${utcValue}'
params: {
kind: 'functionapp,linux'
name: webAppName |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Ok, I solved it via module deployment. And I was pointed out that I should use another avm for the link service (which would result in another deployment as well). Well. If there is no other way ;-) param storageAccountName string
resource storageAccount 'Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts@2023-04-01' existing = {
name: storageAccountName
resource tableService 'tableServices' existing = {
name: 'default'
}
}
param webAppName string
resource webApp 'Microsoft.Web/sites@2023-12-01' existing = {
name: webAppName
}
resource storageTableLink 'Microsoft.ServiceLinker/linkers@2022-05-01' = {
scope: webApp
name: 'storagetable'
properties: {
clientType: 'python'
targetService: {
type: 'AzureResource'
id: storageAccount::tableService.id
}
authInfo: {
authType: 'systemAssignedIdentity'
}
}
} |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi, I just started using AVM, unfortunately I didn't find a specific discussion-room for it, but as it is bicep specific, I'm asking here.
I'm using
br/public:avm/res/storage/storage-account:0.8.3
to deploy a storage account.I use the parameter table Services, to deploy a table Service and a table.
Now, in the same deployment, I need to access this table-service for a service linker
'Microsoft.ServiceLinker/linkers'
to enable my function-app to be able to work with the table-storage.Before working with avm, and deploying the storage account and the table service myself, I was able to specify the table service from the resource. How can I do the same with avm deployment?
I tried using resource
existing
deployment, but I would need to put it into another deployment, rather than have it in the same deployment as the avm module. Becauseexisting
doesn't allow fordependsOn
, and would try to resolve the resource before it is deployed. And also, its getting even more complex than without avm. Am I doing something wrong here?Before:
With AVM:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions