identity/commonschema: add support for SystemOrSingleUserAssignedIdentity
#164
+855
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This variant of the existing
SystemOrUserAssignedIdentityis needed due to theidentityimplementation within the Databricks service.NOTE: The swagger definition of this resource and the RP implementation of the said swagger do not align (e.g.
identity_idsis amap[]while the RP will only accept a singleidentity_id). TheType, per the swagger, isSystemAssigned,UserAssignedorSystemAssigned, UserAssigned). However, if you send the RP theSystemAssigned, UserAssignedTypethe RP returns a400 : BadRequesterror stating that theTypemust beSystemAssignedorUserAssignedbut not both.Additional: My gut instinct about this discrepancy between the swagger and the actual RP behavior is that the service team didn't want to reinvent the wheel and took an existing swagger definition that was very close to what they wanted and then customized it for their particular usage in their service. Is that the correct? Personally I would say no, but this is actually a fairly common practice among the service teams as swagger management is rather painful.