Containerapp 0.3.10 Release

[StrawnSC]

---

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

Related command

General Guidelines

• Have you run azdev style <YOUR_EXT> locally? (pip install azdev required)
• Have you run python scripts/ci/test_index.py -q locally?

For new extensions:

• My extension description/summary conforms to the Extension Summary Guidelines.

About Extension Publish

There is a pipeline to automatically build, upload and publish extension wheels.
Once your pull request is merged into main branch, a new pull request will be created to update src/index.json automatically.
The precondition is to put your code inside this repository and upgrade the version in the pull request but do not modify src/index.json.

[yonzhan]

Containerapp

[panchagnula]

@StrawnSC / @haroonf when is this version going to be ready for release? Seems like it missing some other changes we discussed should be part of the release?

[StrawnSC]

@StrawnSC / @haroonf when is this version going to be ready for release? Seems like it missing some other changes we discussed should be part of the release?

@panchagnula is this the change you were talking about: calvinsID#145 (Rune's fix for the --location in az containerapp hostname list)?
The only other outstanding change is the "no dockerfile" feature, but I thought we wanted to give some time for @anthonychu to try it out. I wouldn't be opposed to merging that with this release though

[panchagnula]

@StrawnSC / @haroonf when is this version going to be ready for release? Seems like it missing some other changes we discussed should be part of the release?

@panchagnula is this the change you were talking about: calvinsID#145 (Rune's fix for the --location in az containerapp hostname list)? The only other outstanding change is the "no dockerfile" feature, but I thought we wanted to give some time for @anthonychu to try it out. I wouldn't be opposed to merging that with this release though

if we need to wait on testing/ sign-off from Anthony that is ok - but we need to get the regression fix deployed soon, so lets prioritize that accordingly. Thanks!

[panchagnula]

@zhoxing-ms could you review this today & share your initial comments!

[panchagnula]

In general can we work with core-cli to figure out getting these tests run without live mode. Given extension tests don't run in nightly or release builds, or PR builds, these don't help until a dev runs all tests locally.
The containerapp-compose is supposed to have running these kind of tests, using a monkey patch of some sort, can we do something similar?

[smurawski]

The problem we bumped into was the generated name for the log analytics workspace.

We worked around this by adding a hidden/suppressed parameter and then using the self.create_random_name to pass in a known value (known to the test harness) for the name of the log analytics workspace.

This required a monkey patch of _generate_log_analytics_workspace_name by https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli-extensions/blob/main/src/containerapp-compose/azext_containerapp_compose/_monkey_patch.py#L57-L60

I'd be happy to grab some time to pair to see if that'd be helpful for your tests.

[panchagnula]

Thanks @smurawski - given this a create command that can take an existing log-analytics as an input I am curious why this failing. but to your point yes, happy to engage with you as needed.

[smurawski]

@panchagnula - in this test (see line 575), it's doing a containerapp env create which generates a log analytics workspace with a random name. This will fail on any attempt to replay the recorded test.

[StrawnSC]

Thanks for the suggestion @smurawski! I'm testing this right now. Thankfully, we can pass in log analytics workspace names to az containerapp env create without needing to add hidden parameters to any of our commands, so this might be an easy fix for us

[panchagnula]

Please update the validation logic of the test. Create a work item at the min to investigate & work with core-cli how to make the "live only" tests (espcially for not "up") work as true scenario tests.

[StrawnSC]

@panchagnula I made the change to testing validation you mentioned above. The fix @smurawski suggested didn't work for all our tests (but I changed it for the ones it worked for) so I went ahead and made a work item to investigate this further so it won't block this release

[panchagnula]

@panchagnula I made the change to testing validation you mentioned above. The fix @smurawski suggested didn't work for all our tests (but I changed it for the ones it worked for) so I went ahead and made a work item to investigate this further so it won't block this release

Thanks a lot @StrawnSC , good to see the Diff show more test cases are not live mode anymore. For UP , we need to figure out a better way to make these not live. We can work with core-cli as well during our investigation. These might be tests we need more eyes, so we will still go our manual test pass route.

[panchagnula]

Approved.

[zhoxing-ms]

@StrawnSC Could you please address those CI issues?

[azclibot]

[Release] Update index.json for extension [ containerapp ] : https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=1805860&view=results