Skip to content

Azure Migrate new cmdlets to support VMwareCbt Migration #13024

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

Merged
merged 122 commits into from
Sep 29, 2020

Conversation

prsadhu-ms-idc
Copy link

@prsadhu-ms-idc prsadhu-ms-idc commented Sep 21, 2020

Description

Design PR : https://github.com/Azure/azure-powershell-cmdlet-review-pr/issues/737
Azure Migrate PowerShell cmdlets for the VMware to Azure scenario will enable IT Pro administrators to automate their migration factories and make it easy to perform repetitive migration activities (as most of the migration activities are done in stages). It will also enable at scale automation support for customers (currently limited due to portal constraints), a repetitive ask from our customers. The focus will be on allowing end to end scenario enablement for VMware to Azure scenario by giving more power to the user without exposing the additional complexity inherent in Azure Migrate’s migration architecture.
Enable IT Pros to achieve to automate VMware to Azure agentless migration scenario
Will allow scripting of Azure Migrate migration operations for scale deployments
Equip power users to unleash Azure Migrate’s full potential through simplified customization
Ensure future extensibility in accordance with Azure Migrate migration roadmap

Checklist

  • I have read the Submitting Changes section of CONTRIBUTING.md
  • The title of the PR is clear and informative
  • The appropriate ChangeLog.md file(s) has been updated:
    • For any service, the ChangeLog.md file can be found at src/{{SERVICE}}/{{SERVICE}}/ChangeLog.md
    • A snippet outlining the change(s) made in the PR should be written under the ## Upcoming Release header -- no new version header should be added
  • The PR does not introduce breaking changes
  • If applicable, the changes made in the PR have proper test coverage
  • For public API changes to cmdlets:
    • a cmdlet design review was approved for the changes in this repository (Microsoft internal only)
    • the markdown help files have been regenerated using the commands listed here

@prsadhu-ms-idc prsadhu-ms-idc marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2020 22:46
@prsadhu-ms-idc prsadhu-ms-idc changed the title [Draft PR]Azure Migrate new cmdlets to support VMwareCbt Migration Azure Migrate new cmdlets to support VMwareCbt Migration Sep 26, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@VeryEarly VeryEarly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please mask subscription in examples and regenerate help
as something like xxx-xxx-xxx

Copy link
Member

@isra-fel isra-fel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @prsadhu-ms-idc it generally LGTM. One thing is that I noticed you used -ResourceName for the name of the resource, however Azure PowerShell has a convention to use just -Name for the name of the subject of the cmdlet. Could you please replace all -ResourceName with -Name?

@isra-fel
Copy link
Member

I just added Az.Migrate to our CI pipeline. Re-triggering the checkes

@isra-fel
Copy link
Member

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link
Contributor

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s), but failed to run 2 pipeline(s).

@prsadhu-ms-idc
Copy link
Author

prsadhu-ms-idc commented Sep 27, 2020

Hi @isra-fel , please find reply.
[Question]
One thing is that I noticed you used -ResourceName for the name of the resource, however Azure PowerShell has a convention to use just -Name for the name of the subject of the cmdlet. Could you please replace all -ResourceName with -Name?

[Answers]

  • In Migrate Project Name can mean a lot of things, like Fabric Name, Container Name, Policy Name, Site Name, Project Name and then Resource Name. So swagger to remove this ambiguity uses Resource Name.

  • ResourceName means the resource (commonly called Vault in Migrate world) , for whose context the resource is to be obtained. We can obtain a resource in other contexts also (Project, Site etc.) It is not the name of the resource being extracted. This changes upon scenario. These are all auto-gen where a single param set has been kept (after debugging with PS team over mail previously), because of issues related to polymorphism and in line.

  • The cmdlets that use them (Get-AzMigrateReplicationPolicy , Get-AzMigrateReplicationProtectionContainer etc.) are not supposed to be exposed to User in long run. Currently we are doing that because there was a cmdlet Initialise-Infrastructure, which would have used them (and we would have kept the cmdlets internal). But because of cross RP build issue, which we are unable to resolve right now, we have kept the cmdlets exposed. These are not to be used by User in flow. We assure you as soon as we fix the cross RP issue in next release of this, and definitely before General Availiablity, we will remove these cmdlets. Right now renaming will be a lot of work, because it is used in many places in custom code. Request you to kindly consider same.

@prsadhu-ms-idc
Copy link
Author

@VeryEarly for
please mask subscription in examples and regenerate help
as something like xxx-xxx-xxx

[Answer] Fixed.

Copy link
Member

@isra-fel isra-fel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I got you point. -Name should refer to the subject of current cmdlet, but yours are not the case. I'm good to go.

@isra-fel isra-fel merged commit f1e654d into Azure:generation Sep 29, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants