Possible to specify the type of an object?

[ctolkien]

For instance, when defining a webapp resource, we might abstract out the properties to another object so that it can be easily shared.

resource webapp 'Microsoft.Web/sites@2020-12-01' = {
  name: '${webAppName}'
  location: location
  identity: {
    type: 'SystemAssigned'
  }
  properties: standardParams // Standard params here

standardParams is jus an object, but we've lost all intellisense when making changes to it. I'm not sure if it is possible to specify this as a named resource type, specifically of the "Schema:71_Properties"?

[brwilkinson]

Hi @ctolkien I noticed you didn't get an answer to your discussion, so I wanted to follow up.

Are you able to provide some more detail?

Are you referencing the parameter via a Module from another Bicep File ?

below is as.bicep module.

param standardParams object

resource as 'Microsoft.Compute/availabilitySets@2021-03-01' = {
  name: standardParams.name
  location: standardParams.location
  properties: {
    platformFaultDomainCount:  3
    platformUpdateDomainCount: 5
  }
}

Then I have another bicep file referencing that module

module availabilitySet 'as.bicep' = {
  name: 'myAS'
  params: {
    standardParams: {
        <intellisense>
    }
  }
}

I believe that you maybe asking if the location above can do a lookup for the property names that exist on the object in the Module ? In the above case name and location.

[ctolkien]

Hi, this is being referenced within the same Bicep file.

Pseudocode example:

var foo object = {
...
}

resource thing1 'Thing' = {
    properties: foo
}

resource thing2 'Thing' = {
    properties: foo
}

In these cases, I will not have intellisense when defining 'foo', even though I only intend on using this in one specific spot. There doesn't appear to be a way to specify that 'foo' is of type 'thing_properties'.

[alex-frankel]

@shenglol - can you find your comment where you made some parameter type proposals? I'm having trouble finding it

[shenglol]

Yes. Here it is: #622 (comment)

[brwilkinson]

going to mark this one as answered for now, since the conversation is being tracked in #622