I've been diving into Bicep, and it seems like everyone names their entry point Bicep file 'main.bicep.' While I understand this practice, I wonder if it's really the best approach. Having a more descriptive name could help clarify its purpose, especially when working with multiple files or collaborating in a team. Is there a best practice on this, or does it really just come down to personal preference? Also, if anyone has recommendations for solid Bicep resources beyond the Microsoft Learn courses, I'd appreciate it! I've noticed some gaps in the practical advice there, and I'm curious about the nuances that might not be covered. Lastly, are there any insights on how Bicep compares to Terraform in terms of usability and coverage?
6 Answers
Yeah, the naming convention does seem to derive from programming's convention where the entry point of an application is typically named 'main.' It’s intuitive for developers who’ve worked in C++, Java, or similar languages. So using 'main.bicep' makes sense from that perspective, especially for those of us familiar with that naming convention.
Definitely, while 'main.bicep' is unofficially standard, what's more crucial is consistency in naming and folder structure. You want your automation and pipeline logic to run smoothly, whether you're using 'main' or something else as long as it follows a predictable pattern. I've scaffolded my projects by landing zones and workloads, so each area has its own main file for ease of use.
One important point to consider is that having a standardized file name like 'main.bicep' simplifies deployment processes. When pipelines reference this name, it's much easier to manage without needing constant updates to the pipeline templates just to play nice with different names. Sure, adding unique identifiers could work, but it can also complicate things unnecessarily if you're only ever going to have one main file per service or project. Keeping things straightforward helps maintain that balance.
I get what you mean! It seems logical to keep it simple if you're maintaining just one 'main.bicep' per repo or service.
In many organizations using Bicep, every service often has its own main Bicep template, and keeping a standard naming convention simplifies this. It allows anyone to quickly pinpoint where to make changes without hunting through the structure. If pipelines and main Bicep files are consistently named, it also helps avoid confusion down the line when modifying deployments.
That makes sense! If there’s clarity in the naming, it can really reduce the time spent figuring things out during deployment.
While this is about Bicep, I plan my Terraform files similarly using 'main.tf'. It's just common sense for project organization. Everyone knows to start there, and then you can branch out into further files or modules for more complexity. That way, it's not just a jumble, and everything has its place!
My approach is to use structured folders to maintain clarity while still using the 'main.bicep' naming convention. For example, I might have folders named by versioning like 'v1.0.0/microsoft_network/virtualnetworks/spoke_vnet.bicep'. This way, everything is organized, and I push updates to Azure Container Registry as a private module registry. I agree that naming it 'main.bicep' works just fine, but ensuring clear modular structures keeps everything in line for collaboration. It's all about what works during deployment without confusion.
That structure sounds super organized! Having a single 'main.bicep' per subscription makes it unique, but I too prefer some clarity at a glimpse.
Absolutely, plus it sets a standard across services! It’s all about making it easier for anyone jumping into the project later.