Microsoft.Automation/automationAccounts/configurations - The property "properties" is read-only

[MartinHannemann]

Microsoft.Automation/automationAccounts/configurations - The property "properties" is read-only

[alex-frankel]

Looks like a swagger issue. They types changed in the most recent released. The previous type definition we had did not mark these properties as read-only. I will open an issue in the swagger repo.

@miqm - this also seems related to our logic for making type errors with top level properties warnings instead of errors. This type issue should be non-blocking.

@MartinHannemann -- if it's critical, reverting to an older version of bicep should fix this.

[miqm]

On the other hand, we should have some type tests that when we prepare a package upgrade to review what was changed and perhaps catch that sort of changes and verify them manually if they're correct or not.

[alex-frankel]

Looks like the swagger may not be the issue based on this response?

---

Hi Alex,

Reaching out to you for the git hub issue that is opened recently. In our swagger definition these properties are not marked as read-only. Also there has been no changes in the swagger definition for this API.

Link to swagger repo for these parameters which are shown as read-only: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/e5a0d0d5f7b69554dc6cc27455e86155306444b2/specification/automation/resource-manager/Microsoft.Automation/stable/2019-06-01/dscConfiguration.json#L455

Could you help with this?

Thanks,
Jagpreet Singh

[alex-frankel]

It's because you are using are using the existing keyword in the resource declaration which is a way to reference previously created resources to read properties from it. It makes the type of the entire resource read-only. If you are looking to create or update the resource, you should remove that keyword.

EDIT: misread the screenshot - sorry! Will send a new response soon.

[miqm]

Seems that all type-related issues should be warnings, never errors. I think we left those that are coming from swagger assuming swagger will be accurate for top-level ones. Seems we're wrong.

[alex-frankel]

Leaving this open to track the swagger issue, but it is no longer Top 5