[Feature Request] BREAKING change: Rename DEPLOYMENT_SP_ID to DEPLOYMENT_SPN_ENTAPP_OBJID

[AlexanderSehr]

Description

As discussed in #1016, we want to be more explicit with the name of the DEPLOYMENT_SP_ID variable in CARML. In the past there was some confusion around this value.

Note: This is a breaking change that will require downstream forks/clones to update their environment.

[eriqua]

I totally support this change and I understand the team already agreed on this name, just wondering while N in SPN stands for Name, wouldn't it be better to call it DEPLOYMENT_SP_ENTAPP_OBJID?

In addition, since as correctly stated this is a breaking change and given

• the open draft PR by @MariusStorhaug [MAJOR/BREAKING] Adding OIDC login functionality #1452 and
• the open pr [Pipeline] Users/seseicht/adjust publish #1472 by @SeSeicht

I'd suggest to align on the name of all GH and ADO secrets in order not to introduce the same breaking change twice.
For example the OIDC PR should align with the name suggested by this actual feature request and similarly refer to DEPLOYMENT_SP_ENTAPP_APPID or DEPLOYMENT_SP_APPID instead of ARM_CLIENT_ID since we're talking about the same service principal.

[MariusStorhaug]

@eriqua As a SP consist of an EntApp and AppReg, I would suggest just calling it DEPLOYMENT_SP_APPID in that case as AppID is shared between the two, aligning more to object/class oriented naming.
Will review these PRs tomorrow to align a bit more.

[MariusStorhaug]

#1605 could make the rename obsolete.

[rahalan]

@MariusStorhaug please elaborate on your findings with your PoC. Can we close the issue?

[MariusStorhaug]

@rahalan, I don't think we should close it until we agree if we want to automate the step? If we do then this issue is redundant and should not be worked on. I have not taken that issue myself yet, and removed it from the PR regarding OIDC as its combining a lot of overhead to the PR which wasn't the intention in the first place.