This message was deleted.

I can’t spot any problems with this… If you are okay sharing the logs, could you run

pulumi up --skip-preview --yes -v=9 --debug --logflow --logtostderr

and send the output to mikhail@pulumi.com ?

Thank you so much @tall-librarian-49374! I will get this sent over to you. E-mail will come from michael@lundie.io . Cheers!

Thank you for the logs. Again, the HTTP logs look good to me so I’m not sure what Azure complains about… It looks fairly similar to e.g. this example https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/specification/cdn/resour[…]/Microsoft.Cdn/stable/2020-09-01/examples/Endpoints_Create.json Have you tried reducing the resource to a single property with

odataType

to understand which one is to blame, or whether they are all broken?

Have you tried reducing the resource to a single property with 

odataType

 to understand which one is to blame, or whether they are all broken?

Absolutely. It seems to be a problem with all of them. I'll experiment with the templates you linked to and see if I have the same problem. Thank you very much!

Odd… Please share your findings. I really want to understand this.

I finally figured this out. Thank you again for all of your help. It was something relatively "simple" in the end. My confusion perhaps came from the lack of consistency in naming of the input types which corresponded to the cdn.models name space. (I'm also new to Azure and Pulumi, so I'm certain my lack of experience plays a big part in my confusion!) Take the example below (which is now correct):

conditions: [ {
  name: "RequestScheme",
  parameters: {
    operator: "Equal",
    matchValues: [  "HTTP"  ],
    odataType:"#Microsoft.Azure.Cdn.Models.DeliveryRuleRequestSchemeConditionParameters"
  }
}],

The parameters expected input type is:

parameters: pulumi.Input<inputs.cdn.RequestSchemeMatchConditionParameters

So I had initially assumed odataType namespace would be the same. Looking at the Azure Docs gets me closer to the actual type - but not quite. The correct odataType model was in fact "DeliveryRuleRequestSchemeConditionParameters". (I wonder why it is not: "DeliveryRuleRequestScheme_*Match*_ConditionParameters".) The templates you linked to made me realise the naming conventions being used and with some experimentation I managed to get there. The correct types were as follows: for "UrlRedirect" Action: #Microsoft.Azure.Cdn.Models.DeliveryRuleUrlRedirectActionParameters for "RequestScheme" Condition: #Microsoft.Azure.Cdn.Models.DeliveryRuleRequestSchemeConditionParameters for "CacheExpiration" action: #Microsoft.Azure.Cdn.Models.DeliveryRuleCacheExpirationActionParameters Thank you again very much!

Oh, I see. So you are able to pass arbitrary values as

odataType

? I was hoping we would validate it if it was wrong.