[Issue] Preflight UX enhancement

[hemarina]

• Add error suggestions or guidance based on preflight error. Increases readability of error messages for users with no Azure background.
• Considering guide users with terminal commands.

[SophCarp]

@hemarina could I have the text of the error?

[rajeshkamal5050]

@SophCarp this PR #4329 has screenshots of the error message. Note: The complete message (anything starts from Message:) is not generated by azd. The core of the error and message comes from ARM service. cc @weikanglim @vhvb1989

[SophCarp]

Current Error message (line separation by me)

Error: 
Deployment failed: 
error deploying infrastructure: 
calling preflight validate api failing to resource group: 
Preflight validation check for resource(s) for container service aks in resource group rg-hemarina-nodejs-1 failed. 
Message: The VM size of the Standard_B4ms is not allowed in your subscription location ‘australiacentral’. For more details please visit https://aka.ms/aks/quotas-skus-regions. Details:

Thoughts:

• The goal is to tell the user their deployment failed because of a preflight check for a specific service. The customer needs to know the service that has the issue and the message for that issue.
• I think names or resources or resource groups should have single-quotations around them to indicate they are names.
• lines 3 and 4 of the error seem redundant

Questions:

• is aks the name of the container service? is "container service" the resource type? as in a container app?
• Will there be potentially multiple resources that will fail in this preflight?
   
  Proposed error message:

ERROR: 
Deployment failed:
Preflight validation check failed for resource(s) 'aks' in resource group 'rg-hemarina-nodejs'.
Message: the VM size of the Standard_B4ms is not allowed in your subscription location ‘australiacentral’. For more details please visit https://aka.ms/aks/quotas-skus-regions.

@hemarina @rajeshkamal5050 thoughts?

[SophCarp]

Notes from meeting discussion:

Preflight validation check failed for .... is dependent on other folks - @hemarina will follow up with them to see if the line can be improved.

Preflight validation check is a key word that customers should have access to so they can google it or recognize the pattern. Alternate wording COULD be Validation check for resources - I think that also works and is a little more readable.

We can definitely suggest customers use --debug for more verbose logs and make this error less verbose generally.

[hemarina]

Share status:
Issue created in preflight team: https://stackoverflow.microsoft.com/questions/437081

[spboyer]

The preflight/provision UX has been significantly improved through structured error handling:

• Error classification distinguishes unknown, network, auth, template, quota, and resource errors (Improve error classification for unknown and network errors #6803 merged, Ability to easily provide custom error messages/suggestions/docs for errors. #6827 open)
• Actionable suggestions with documentation links replace raw ARM error output (Ability to easily provide custom error messages/suggestions/docs for errors. #6827 ErrorWithSuggestion UX)
• Soft-delete conflicts detected with purge guidance (Add soft-delete conflict detection hints for deployment errors #6810 merged)
• Container App, RBAC, and provider errors have targeted rules (Add Container App specific error handling rules #6845, Add RBAC and authorization error rules for deployment failures #6846)
• LocationNotAvailableForResourceType dynamically suggests alternative regions (Ability to easily provide custom error messages/suggestions/docs for errors. #6827)