fix: Update avm/res/net-app/net-app-account - fix optional zone for volumes and specify protocolTypes options

[thecmdradama]

Description

This PR resolves the following issues in the avm/res/net-app/net-app-account module

• On the NetApp Volume submodule, zone has been renamed to availabilityZone.
• The type for availabilityZone has been changed to string from int[] and is now optional with null as the default. Previously the module would try and deploy a volume into all three zones if no value is defined.
• Changed: protocolTypes is now an optional array of strings with three possible options 'NFSv3', 'NFSv4.1', and 'CIFS'. If no value is provided, the default value of ['NFSv3'] is used.
• Added to the description for protocolTypes indicating that the user will need to specify ['NFSv3','CIFS'] or ['NFSv4.1','CIFS'] if creating dual-stack volumes.
• Added in additional submodule README.md and main.json files generated by Set-AVMModule.

Pipeline Reference

Pipeline

Type of Change

• Update to CI Environment or utilities (Non-module affecting changes)
• Azure Verified Module updates:
  • Bugfix containing backwards-compatible bug fixes, and I have NOT bumped the MAJOR or MINOR version in version.json:
    • Someone has opened a bug report issue, and I have included "Closes #{bug_report_issue_number}" in the PR description.
    • The bug was found by the module author, and no one has opened an issue to report it yet.
  • Feature update backwards compatible feature updates, and I have bumped the MINOR version in version.json.
  • Breaking changes and I have bumped the MAJOR version in version.json.
  • Update to documentation

Checklist

• I'm sure there are no other open Pull Requests for the same update/change
• I have run Set-AVMModule locally to generate the supporting module files.
• My corresponding pipelines / checks run clean and green without any errors or warnings

[AlexanderSehr]

Hey @fbinotto,
please review at your earliest convenience :)
The PR looks good from my side.

[thecmdradama]

Just had a thought around another change I would like to make. Being that the capacity pool size must be set in 1TiB chunks. Is there any value in a user defined function to handle the Tebibyte to byte conversion? Would make consuming the module considerably easier. Thoughts @AlexanderSehr and @fbinotto?

[AlexanderSehr]

Just had a thought around another change I would like to make. Being that the capacity pool size must be set in 1TiB chunks. Is there any value in a user defined function to handle the Tebibyte to byte conversion? Would make consuming the module considerably easier. Thoughts @AlexanderSehr and @fbinotto?

Hey @thecmdradama,
not to my knowledge and also none is to be found when looking at the available Bicep functions.
However, it is possible to define functions that could do this on the user's behalf.

[thecmdradama]

Hey @thecmdradama, not to my knowledge and also none is to be found when looking at the available Bicep functions. However, it is possible to define functions that could do this on the user's behalf.

Thanks @AlexanderSehr, a user defined function was what I was thinking of implementing to then simplify the capacity pool size parameter.
From what I can see, there's only one pattern (subResourceWrapper) and no resources that currently implement UDF's. So not really anything currently to try and create a standard from.

I've thrown a quick example together on how it could look in my last commit. Maybe a topic of discussion for the AVM Core team on an agreed approach for utilising UDF's in modules and patterns?

Thanks,

[AlexanderSehr]

Hey @thecmdradama, not to my knowledge and also none is to be found when looking at the available Bicep functions. However, it is possible to define functions that could do this on the user's behalf.

Thanks @AlexanderSehr, a user defined function was what I was thinking of implementing to then simplify the capacity pool size parameter. From what I can see, there's only one pattern (subResourceWrapper) and no resources that currently implement UDF's. So not really anything currently to try and create a standard from.

I've thrown a quick example together on how it could look, in my last commit. Maybe a topic of discussion for the AVM Core team on an agreed approach for utilising UDF's in modules and patterns?

Thanks,

ah well, no standard means no restrictions 😉
My only thought was that if there were multiple such functions it might make sense to publish them as a utl (utility) module. But for just one function, this would be a bit of an overkill.
Looking at your commit, I'd argue it looks great as it is 💪

[thecmdradama]

ah well, no standard means no restrictions 😉

That's when I get worried 😄

My only thought was that if there were multiple such functions it might make sense to publish them as a utl (utility) module. But for just one function, this would be a bit of an overkill.

Yeah, I definitely see value in having a common functions utility module for when others start adopting UDFs, though I don't think many other modules would need this specific one. Only similar one I can see would be elastic-san but that just needs you to pass in tebibytes not tebibyte blocks in bytes...

Looking at your commit, I'd argue it looks great as it is 💪

Thank you, I'll take that compliment :D

[fbinotto]

LGTM