Add application insights connection string support - APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING

[Greybird]

Task names:

• AzureFunctionAppContainerV1
• AzureFunctionAppV1
• AzureFunctionAppV2
• AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV3
• AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV4
• AzureWebAppContainerV1
• AzureWebAppV1

Description:
The PR adds support for adding release annotations when the now recommended APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING setting is used on Azure, rather than the APPINSIGHTS_INSTRUMENTATIONKEY, for all tasks supporting this feature.

Documentation changes required:
I don't think so.

Added unit tests:
No.
I did not find tests for release annotation based on InstrumentationKey.
I had a hard time figuring how to add unit tests for the connection string use case, and tests seem to come from another zone of the code.
Happy to get guidance on the matter however.

Attached related issue:
#18796 (closed due to being stale, probably needs reopening)

Checklist:

• Task version was bumped - please check instruction how to do it
• Checked that applied changes work as expected (tested on our organization by publishing a preview task as explained in documentation)

[FinVamp1]

Can you update the Task.json as mentioned?

[Greybird]

Can you update the Task.json as mentioned?

Sure, I just did, and updated issue template too. Feel free to point any mistake I would have made in the process of course!

[FinVamp1]

Looks good to me from the Function side of things. Thanks for the contribution.

[Greybird]

hi @jvano, @dannysongg, @manolerazvan, @patelchandni,
Sorry to ping you directly ; do not hesitate to redirect me to proper instructions if I missed anything.

Could you guide me on how to have this pr be reviewed and integrated ?
I could take quite a long time to have all reviews, and as we have to integrate sprint number into the PR, I might have to merge/update quite often as the number of people involved is large.

[jvano]

[Greybird]

Thanks @jvano, @manolerazvan !

@dannysongg, @patelchandni, could you please take a look ?

[FinVamp1]

Thanks @jvano, @manolerazvan !

@dannysongg, @patelchandni, could you please take a look ?

Hello @Greybird I think in this instance Joaquin and Danny are part of the Web Apps task team and Chandni and I are part of the Functions team so just one approval is probably needed from each team.

[Greybird]

@FinVamp1, you are right, sorry,
I have been confused by the "2 pending reviewers" mention, while the changes are actually approved. Thanks for pointing this!

I suppose there is nothing left for me to do currently, as checks now have to run, which I believe depends on some validation on Microsoft side ?
Do not hesitate to point to needed actions if I am wrong.

Thanks again for your guidance with the process !

[Greybird]

Hello,

I updated sprint to 241.
I don't know how I can help further to have this PR merged.

[v-schhabra]

Hi @Greybird
I could see you have not updated task.json file for AzureFunctionAppContainerV1, AzureFunctionAppV1, AzureFunctionAppV2, AzureWebAppContainerV1 and AzureWebAppV1 tasks.
Incase you missed to update task.json file please update it or is it purposefully ignored?
And please let us know if you tested the tasks after doing these changes or not?

[Greybird]

Hi @v-schhabra ,

Thanks for pointing this. Indeed the merge with master collided with changes, and I forgot to apply versioning to these task.json files.
I merged again with master, and reapplied patch versions.
To me everything should be correct now, but if you find anything missing, please tell me!

[Greybird]

Forgot to answer your question @v-schhabra: yes I conducted tests by publishing these tasks under new guids to a private org, and they worked.

[Greybird]

Hi @v-schhabra,
I rebased on master again, and switched to sprint 243.
Did you find a way to have pipelines pass on the PR ? Is there another way to manage this situation ?

[Greybird]

Hi @v-schhabra ,
I rebased on master (again), and bumped the version.

As this PR fixes a Microsoft-introduced issue following a change of recommendation regarding how Application Insights should be declared on infrastructure, I would expect a more straightforward road to a merge, especially as code owners validated the content already.
I must admit that the contribution experience is rather frustrating, and not in line with how I undestand the spitit of contribute.md, with 2 and a half month of bumping sprint numbers, patch versions, and integrating master changes.

If not being part of microsoft is what makes it impossible to have the build pipelines pass, then is there a way to have someone from Microsoft (you?) create another PR with the same content to make this PR mergeable ?

Thanks for the input on this matter,

[FinVamp1]

@Greybird I've merged your changes into the Functions Apps V2 task as part of this PR for other work. #20191

@v-schhabra and @manolerazvan can you help Arnaud get the rest of his changes in? This is an important community contribution I think that will help as indicated above.

[v-schhabra]

Hi @v-schhabra , I rebased on master (again), and bumped the version.

As this PR fixes a Microsoft-introduced issue following a change of recommendation regarding how Application Insights should be declared on infrastructure, I would expect a more straightforward road to a merge, especially as code owners validated the content already. I must admit that the contribution experience is rather frustrating, and not in line with how I undestand the spitit of contribute.md, with 2 and a half month of bumping sprint numbers, patch versions, and integrating master changes.

If not being part of microsoft is what makes it impossible to have the build pipelines pass, then is there a way to have someone from Microsoft (you?) create another PR with the same content to make this PR mergeable ?

Thanks for the input on this matter,

Apologies for replying late.
Recently I have some high priority items in my queue once I have some bandwidth will create another PR by having these changes.
Will test the tasks and merge it then.
Thanks for the contribution and patience.

[manolerazvan]

can we ensure unit tests are covering both the old and the new scenarios ? especially different formats of APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING ?

[v-schhabra]

can we ensure unit tests are covering both the old and the new scenarios ? especially different formats of APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING ?

Sure, will check Razvan.

[Greybird]

Hi @v-schhabra , any news ?

I rebased on master, and updated versions again.
I removed AzureFunctionAppV1 from the commit as AzureFunctionAppV2 was already updated thanks to @FinVamp1.

This leaves:

• AzureFunctionAppContainerV1
• AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV3
• AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV4
• AzureWebAppContainerV1
• AzureWebAppV1

to update.

[v-schhabra]

Hi @Greybird
I did the changes on my end for the tasks owned by our team. Will test the changes and create the PR soon.

[Greybird]

Great news, thanks for your work on the subject!

[manolerazvan]

@dannysongg @jvano these leaves us with the following

AzureFunctionAppContainerV1
AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV3
AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV4

Are you able to test the changes and merge them ?

[dannysongg]

@Greybird I'll be updating AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV3 and AzureRmWebAppDeploymentV4 on the WebApp side.
@FinVamp1 do you own AzureFunctionAppContainerV1?