-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
vnet peering create --allow-vnet-access help text wrong? #9051
Comments
Thanks for the report @mhyllander! I'll take a look. |
In addition, the help text for option "--allow-forwarded-traffic" says:
This also looks strange. According to the portal: This states that the option will allow traffic not originating in net-a to be forwarded to net-b. |
@MikhailTryakhov can you give clarification on this? The CLI help was adapted from the help text in the Swagger specs. Here's the text in the Python SDK (which is from the Swagger)
If this is incorrect, I'm happy to fix the CLI text, but it should also be fixed in the Swagger. |
@Amo18 can you please fix swagger cause you are an owner of Vnets |
@Amo18 if I can get confirmation on whether Swagger or Portal is correct, I can make the update in CLI if needed. |
Agreed, this needs to be fixed in the Swagger document. |
Describe the bug
It seems to me that the help text for the --allow-vnet-access option of the "az network vnet peering create" command is wrong. I think the effect is the opposite.
To Reproduce
Create two vnets in a resource group, "net-a" and "net-b".
Create a vnet peering:
The help text for option "--allow-vnet-access" as output by "az network vnet peering create -h" states:
According to this help text, VMs in net-b will have access to all VMs in net-a.
Whereas the Azure portal displays the following:
Which indicates that VMs in net-a will have access to VMs in net-b, i.e. the opposite of what the CLI help states.
Expected behavior
I believe the help text for option "--allow-vnet-access" should say the exact opposite.
Environment summary
Additional context
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: