-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
Update to DaprResourceProperties #7919
Comments
👍 We've reviewed this issue and have agreed to add it to our backlog. Please subscribe to this issue for notifications, we'll provide updates when we pick it up. We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue. For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview |
Overview of feature request
When recently reviewing a PR (#7906), we looked at Dapr Component specification, https://github.com/dapr/dapr/blob/9591e5778c4e03587acabe35744770881a86c35f/charts/dapr/crds/components.yaml#L83-L86,
and see that fields Metadata, Version, Type are mandatory.
In Radius typespec documentation,
radius/typespec/Applications.Dapr/common.tsp
Lines 27 to 35 in 96fb582
we treat these as optional fields.
Having reviewed all examples in radius and samples repos, they define these fields, and since we know this specification applies to all Dapr components, creating this issue to review if we should update our model in typespec to required fields or are there compelling reasons to let them be as is today.
Advantages to update: Bicep instellisense will let users know they need to fill out these required fields when describing Dapr components and avoid late errors.
Acceptance criteria
a. Update typespec model for DaprResourceProperties, run make generate
b. Run all unit and functional tests in radius repo
c. Ensure tests in samples repo run without issues.
Additional context
No response
Would you like to support us?
AB#13195
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: