[Getting started with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform on Microsoft Azure] Multiple Suggestions

[oatakan]

• Use non-admin users to reduce the clutter on the navigation menu
• Consolidate all infra elements into one job template, add a sample app as a post provisioning step in the workflow template. Not very interesting to see all of those infra steps done in the workflow template. It would be more realistic to keep them in one job template. Perhaps resource group creation can be self standing as well.
• Workflow names are not legible in the output view. Shorten job and workflow template names

[IPvSean]

Use non-admin users to reduce the clutter on the navigation menu

Recommendation on user-name? Is there a standard you see with SAs?

Consolidate all infra elements into one job template, add a sample app as a post provisioning step in the workflow template. Not very interesting to see all of those infra steps done in the workflow template. It would be more realistic to keep them in one job template. Perhaps resource group creation can be self standing as well.

Why? Not sure I agree with this one. What I am thinking long term is we can auto-load all the modules parametrized pragmatically and bypass playbook creation all together. Why would this not be "realistic"? Its just making it easier to drag and drop and create a low-code approach to creating automation. The problem is if you couple it all together it makes it less flexible.

Workflow names are not legible in the output view. Shorten job and workflow template names

Which output? Can you show a screenshot of where its cumbersome.

[oatakan]

Recommendation on user-name? Is there a standard you see with SAs?

It could be any non-admin user name. Probably go with if any standard user in instruqt, like 'user', 'student' etc. If we want to allow users explore in admin functions on the left navigation then 'admin' user is fine.

Why? Not sure I agree with this one. What I am thinking long term is we can auto-load all the modules parametrized pragmatically and bypass playbook creation all together. Why would this not be "realistic"? Its just making it easier to drag and drop and create a low-code approach to creating automation. The problem is if you couple it all together it makes it less flexible.

I'm thinking more from DevOps perspective where everything lives in code and AAP orchestrates the automation of everything touches the environment. If we approach this from low-code perspective with survey inputs then it's different. There is also Azure console if somebody wants the UI with some input fields to provision infrastructure.

Which output? Can you show a screenshot of where its cumbersome.

• Create a workflow, add a node (i.e. Workflow - 01 - Create Resource Group), on the node created, you can only see 'Workflow 01 - Create Re..' where some text is cut off. It can be shortened to read '01-Create Resource Group'.