Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Adding ApplicationGroup to EventHub Namespace #17430
Adding ApplicationGroup to EventHub Namespace #17430
Changes from 69 commits
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 filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will new connections be allowed while the isEnabled flag is still false? #Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have mentioned "no" new connections will be allowed. Do let me know if you think any fixes need to be made.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry I seemed to have read it wrong then. This is good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Revert this change on SASKeyName
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
instead of an array why not just model it as policies.rateLimitThresholdPolicy.IncomingBytes
policies.rateLimitThresholdPolicy.OutgoingBytes
policies.rateLimitThresholdPolicy.IncomingMessages
?
Isnt it cleaner this way and you can also save on a lot of validations you might have to implement if you leave it as an array? #Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you are coming from the perspective that there can only be 1 policy based on the metric Id which is applicable?
This makes sense to me, but:
{ "policies": { "ThrottlingPolicy": { "IncomingBytes": 1500, "OutgoingBytes": 2000 }, "SomeOtherPolicy": { "Metric1": 1500, "Metric2": 2000 } } }There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@yogeshgargmsft @kasun04
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rkmanda This is also a smart approach. But it does not look extendable if we have to add more properties related to "throttlingPolicy" for the same metricId e.g if we want to add "throttlingApplicableTill" timestamp field and has the flexibility that it can be applied at individual metricId, then we loose out on that extendibility.
With arrays, yes we need to have certain checks & balances which will be present in service code and will keep getting added as the feature matures.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok please be aware that either ways when you add new policies, they will need to be added in a new API version. API version 1 will have to populate the policies specific to that version and API version 2 will have to add a different set on a GET verb.
The other issue with arrays is that when the client wants to modify only a single element, they still have to ensure theres logic in place to manipulate the whole array. So in general we are discouraging teams from using arrays. If you are willing to deal with the validation/ versioning complexities it is fine but pl do so with the understanding of all the implications.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we have any upper/lower limit, if there is please add in the description.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@yogeshgargmsft Is there one? or is it limited it int64 size?