use-resource-id-functions linter rule not spotting if conditional that is wrapped in parens ( )

[jtracey93]

Bicep version

0.10.61

Describe the bug
use-resource-id-functions linter rule not spotting if conditional that is wrapped in brackets ( )

Error message: If property "id" represents a resource ID, it must use a symbolic resource reference, be a parameter or start with one of these functions: extensionResourceId, guid, if, reference, resourceId, subscription, subscriptionResourceId, tenantResourceId.

To Reproduce

See snippet below

resource resTopLevelMg 'Microsoft.Management/managementGroups@2021-04-01' = {
  name: parTopLevelManagementGroupPrefix
  properties: {
    displayName: parTopLevelManagementGroupDisplayName
    details: {
      parent: {
        // Causes linter to flag even though this is an `if` condition - Not Working (triggers linter rule)
        id: (empty(parTopLevelManagementGroupParentId) ? '/providers/Microsoft.Management/managementGroups/${tenant().tenantId}' : parTopLevelManagementGroupParentId)
        
        // Passes linter validation - WORKS
        id: empty(parTopLevelManagementGroupParentId) ? '/providers/Microsoft.Management/managementGroups/${tenant().tenantId}' : parTopLevelManagementGroupParentId
      }
    }
  }
}

Additional context

Should we be wrapping the if conditional in brackets ( ), struggling to find do/dont's? Around this anywhere in docs?

Related to ALZ-Bicep PR: Azure/ALZ-Bicep#318 (updating linter rules to latest)

[alex-frankel]

Possibly another false positive. Thanks for reporting.

[jtracey93]

@alex-frankel no problem, anytime.

Any thoughts on the uses of parentheses () here thats causing it? Have we just got them where we don't need them (aware thats not the linter rules concern here, but it is causing it)?

Maybe another linter rule idea "unrequired parentheses" etc.?

[jtracey93]

tagging @DaFitRobsta for PR awareness in ALZ-Bicep

[alex-frankel]

Oh sorry I missed that piece. These parens are a no-op, so I would recommend removing them. I agree this would be a helpful linter rule.

[jtracey93]

No worries, thanks for the rapid response. We'll update our code our end in ALZ-Bicep.

But this is still a bug that we probably want to handle on this linter rule.

Do you want me to open a new issue for the new suggestion of the linter rule?

[alex-frankel]

I'm going to add triage back and we can discuss it next week. I'm not sure if we should do one or the other or both.

[StephenWeatherford]

Parens shouldn't matter, think it should be noticing the use of tenant().tenantId anywhere in the expression.

[StephenWeatherford]

Dup of #8104 (but thanks for reporting)

[StephenWeatherford]

Reopening since there is something weird going on with the parens...