-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
new resource azurerm_iothub_enrichment
and support azurerm_iothub.enrichment
#9239
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this pr @royto, overall this looks pretty good. However may i ask why you are allowing enrichments to be added both on the iot hub directly and separately with a new resoruce?
Type: schema.TypeList, | ||
Elem: &schema.Schema{ | ||
Type: schema.TypeString, | ||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And validate these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do the same as it is done for route endpoints
), | ||
}, | ||
data.ImportStep(), | ||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we add a final basic step here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you mean by a final basic step ? Is some checks missing ?
To be honest, it is my first PR on terraform (and first time with Go). I took inspiration from what has been done on the test from iothub_route_resource_test.go
This is what is done for others (routes, fallback routes, endpoints (EH, SB Topic, .., ...) So I thought it is needed to be the same for enrichment. For example, In my need I will create the enrichment using the dedicated resource. But for other case, it is simpler to use the iothub resource. IMHO, Both makes sense. |
7df4dbd
to
d102e56
Compare
@katbyte is it Ok for you ? |
azurerm_iothub_enrichment
and support azurerm_iothub.enrichment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @royto - this LGTM 👍
@royto - once the merge conflicts are fixed up this is good to mege! |
0aa1884
to
3c7935e
Compare
@katbyte rebase done. Conflicts fixed and Code updated to match new standard |
from tests to iothub_test
Value cannot be empty
adapt naming convention adapt test structure / function
@katbyte Any chance of including it in the next release? Would be great if we could use it in my team. |
This has been released in version 2.45.0 of the provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. As an example: provider "azurerm" {
version = "~> 2.45.0"
}
# ... other configuration ... |
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks! |
resolves #5872