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

[Feature request from Discussions] StorageAccount - Add LargeFileSharesState property #2570

Closed
eriqua opened this issue Jan 14, 2023 Discussed in #2568 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2580
Closed

[Feature request from Discussions] StorageAccount - Add LargeFileSharesState property #2570

eriqua opened this issue Jan 14, 2023 Discussed in #2568 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2580
Assignees
Labels
[cat] modules category: modules enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@eriqua
Copy link
Contributor

eriqua commented Jan 14, 2023

Discussed in #2568

Originally posted by dibcar January 13, 2023
Hi, the property 'LargeFileSharesState' is not in the storageaccount module. Is there another way to set this property to 'enable' or the property is just missing in the module ?
Thanks

@eriqua eriqua added enhancement New feature or request [cat] modules category: modules labels Jan 14, 2023
@rahalan rahalan added this to Backlog Jan 14, 2023
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs triage in Backlog Jan 14, 2023
@ahmadabdalla
Copy link
Contributor

ahmadabdalla commented Jan 14, 2023

@eriqua shall we also include allowCrossTenantReplication under this same feature request?

It is a recommendation based on a Policy Definition and we can set it to false as default for security best practices.

Reference from the Storage template documentation:

allowCrossTenantReplication Allow or disallow cross AAD tenant object replication. The default interpretation is true for this property.

Another option is to rephrase this ticket to enhance our storage module with additional features as well? At least on the parent level

@eriqua
Copy link
Contributor Author

eriqua commented Jan 14, 2023

@ahmadabdalla nothing against that as completeness is what we should aim for. I think it just depends on how much more adding all missing properties would take compared to adding the one requested.
We could also prioritize this feature and meanwhile open an issue to generally extend the resource with all missing properties.

@ahmadabdalla
Copy link
Contributor

@eriqua .. created an issue for it #2573

@eriqua eriqua linked a pull request Jan 17, 2023 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@rahalan rahalan moved this from Needs triage to In progress in Backlog Jan 17, 2023
@eriqua eriqua self-assigned this Jan 17, 2023
@eriqua eriqua moved this from In progress to Ready for review in Backlog Jan 17, 2023
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Ready for review to Done in Backlog Jan 17, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[cat] modules category: modules enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants