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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Document the Language Version 2.0 Triggers #14866

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Document the Language Version 2.0 Triggers #14866

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions docs/languageversion2.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
# Language Version 2.0 Triggers
Copy link
Member

@anthony-c-martin anthony-c-martin Aug 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this go in MSDocs instead of on GitHub?


We have recently developed a new Language Version 2.0, which provides a new format for resource definitions when transpiling to an ARM Template.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should link to the docs on this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/syntax#languageversion-20


However, with this new language version, we noticed that it may cause breaking changes in some use cases.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As a customer, this sentence wouldn't give me a lot of confidence in our engineering quality bar. "may cause breaking changes" doesn't give me any ability to evaluate risk when deciding to adopt the feature, and sounds like something I'd need to be very concerned about.

Could we make this more precise (e.g. "we are aware of the following behavioral differences", followed by a list with links to issues)?


To avoid triggering Language Version 2.0, we recommend avoiding the following:
* Using user-defined types
* Using user-defined functions
* Using compile-time imports
* Using experimental features
Comment on lines +7 to +11
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This feels unnecessarily negative. Could we invert it?

"Using any of following features will automatically enable language version 2.0 code generation:"

Loading