-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 705
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
Fix/1975 azurerm logic app standard subnet #1978
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix/1975 azurerm logic app standard subnet #1978
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Arnaud Lheureux <[email protected]>
Hey @arne21a, I've tried your fix(we are using the logic app in our caf deployment), however, the Vnet integration still doesn't work. Private endpoint and identity works : -) |
hi @JoDexsph thanks for your feedback! Would you be able to provide your configuration and your error messages? One general consideration: Many CAF modules struggle with subnets created in an other state then the vnet. This might also be the issue here. |
Sure thing @arne21a , kindly check the following gist : https://gist.github.com/JoDexsph/6804a46d6702007d92eaffa5a842689b Not sure if it my place to ask, but can you please add the "public_network_access_enabled" and "https_only" terms to the azurerm block? Thanks. |
Hi @JoDexsph About your other requests: public_network_access_enabled is also something i would like to add, but it is not supported in the used provider version https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/azurerm/3.75.0/docs/resources/logic_app_standard |
Hello @arne21a , I am trying to run it via the rover and get Debug / Trace logs to have more information. |
Anyway regarding the azurerm, today CAF/Rover are using azurerm v3.105.0. |
@JoDexsph As i said, i am working with a diverged version of this project which does not include that provider version update as of right now. Thats the reason why i can not test it. Regarding the issue with the vnet integration: |
Hey @arne21a, |
1975
But also contains fixes for:
#1977
#1973
because those are required for this to work.
PR Checklist
Description
Does this introduce a breaking change
As described in my issue 1975, the proposed change will lead to a short downtime for existing deployments.
Testing