Skip to content
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

azurerm_monitor_private_link_scope - api 2021-07-01-preview - ingestion and query mode access added #25763

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

KiPIDesTAN
Copy link

@KiPIDesTAN KiPIDesTAN commented Apr 26, 2024

Community Note

  • Please vote on this PR by adding a 👍 reaction to the original PR to help the community and maintainers prioritize for review
  • Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

Updated Azure Monitor Private Link Scope to the latest API, 2021-07-01-preview, to support ingestion mode access and query mode access. Fixes #19370 and fixes #10059.

This item adds ingestion_access_mode and query_access_mode items as required items to the azurerm_monitor_private_link_scope resource.

PR Checklist

  • I have followed the guidelines in our Contributing Documentation.
  • I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
  • I have checked if my changes close any open issues. If so please include appropriate closing keywords below.
  • I have updated/added Documentation as required written in a helpful and kind way to assist users that may be unfamiliar with the resource / data source.
  • I have used a meaningful PR title to help maintainers and other users understand this change and help prevent duplicate work.
    For example: “resource_name_here - description of change e.g. adding property new_property_name_here

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

  • I have added an explanation of what my changes do and why I'd like you to include them (This may be covered by linking to an issue above, but may benefit from additional explanation).
  • I have written new tests for my resource or datasource changes & updated any relevent documentation.
  • I have successfully run tests with my changes locally. If not, please provide details on testing challenges that prevented you running the tests.

Testing

  • My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass. (if this is not possible for any reason, please include details of why you did or could not add test coverage)

This is a (please select all that apply):

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature (ie adding a service, resource, or data source)
  • Enhancement
  • Breaking Change

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #19370
Fixes #10059

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the pr @KiPIDesTAN - overall looks good but i think this is a breaking change for users with these properties being optiona;?

Comment on lines 51 to 65
"ingestion_access_mode": {
Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
Required: true,
ValidateFunc: validation.StringInSlice(
[]string{
string(privatelinkscopesapis.AccessModeOpen),
string(privatelinkscopesapis.AccessModePrivateOnly),
},
false),
},

"query_access_mode": {
Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
Required: true,
ValidateFunc: validation.StringInSlice(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

adding these is a rbeaking change? shouldn't they be optional?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@katbyte , good catch.

My most recent push on this PR has changes to make both ingestion_access_mode and query_access_mode optional with default values of 'Open'. Would you mine reviewing again, please?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants