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.

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

Adding support for encryption with customer-managed keys to Azure Search #5858

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Apr 25, 2019

Conversation

shmed
Copy link
Member

@shmed shmed commented Apr 18, 2019

This adds the generated code for the changes in API specs from this commit -> Azure/azure-rest-api-specs@6720121
which was reviewed in this PR -> Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#5567

Adds the Azure Search models for EncryptionKey and AzureActiveDirectoryApplicationCredentials, as well as adds the encryptionKey property to the Index and SynonymMap models.

This PR also includes serialization and deserialization test for the following scenario

  • Create Encrypted Index using a registered AAD application
  • Create Encrypted Index using MSI
  • Create Encrypted SynonymMap using a registered AAD application
  • Create Encrypted SynonymMap using MSI

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

Copy link
Contributor

@natinimni natinimni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@shmed
Copy link
Member Author

shmed commented Apr 18, 2019

Since I couldn't find how to set the option myself, please use "squash" commits when completing the PR (once it gets approval). Thanks

Copy link
Member

@brjohnstmsft brjohnstmsft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Test code looks good, EncryptionFixture needs some work

{
SearchServiceClient searchClient = Data.GetSearchServiceClient();

Index encryptedIndex = CreateEncryptedTestIndex(new EncryptionKey()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wanted to call this out as an example of test code done right. Your instinct in production code might be to factor these details out into a method, but in a test like this having the details be explicit clearly communicates the intended usage of the API. This test communicates exactly what it needs to.

@brjohnstmsft brjohnstmsft self-assigned this Apr 18, 2019
@shmed
Copy link
Member Author

shmed commented Apr 22, 2019

@brjohnstmsft Hi Bruce, can you please take a look at the latest iteration when you have some time? Thanks

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented Apr 22, 2019

@shmed Please pull from latest master and update the PR to fix the Travis failures

@brjohnstmsft
Copy link
Member

@shmed Will review on Wednesday.

Copy link
Member

@brjohnstmsft brjohnstmsft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some earlier issues are not resolved yet. Also, please update your PR to pick up the latest changes from search-preview and fix the identified merge conflicts. This should fix your broken build.

@brjohnstmsft brjohnstmsft reopened this Apr 24, 2019
@brjohnstmsft
Copy link
Member

@dsgouda Any idea why this "default" check is stuck at "expected"? It stayed this way for hours today, and closing and re-opening the PR didn't seem to help.

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented Apr 24, 2019

Taking a look

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented Apr 24, 2019

@brjohnstmsft We have some unexpectedly high load and all 4 Jenkins workers are busy, I am guessing this will be picked up once one of them is free.

@brjohnstmsft
Copy link
Member

@dsgouda Thanks

@brjohnstmsft
Copy link
Member

@dsgouda This still appears to be stuck and is blocking our deliverables for //build. Can you please investigate?

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented Apr 25, 2019

Apologies, taking a look again,.

@dsgouda
Copy link
Contributor

dsgouda commented Apr 25, 2019

@shmed Please join the Azure org here to kick off the build

@dsgouda dsgouda closed this Apr 25, 2019
@dsgouda dsgouda reopened this Apr 25, 2019
@shahabhijeet shahabhijeet merged commit 708b67d into Azure:search-preview Apr 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants