Implemented conditional dynamic blocks for google_access_context_manager_service_perimeter spec and status

[calexandre]

This PR implements conditional dynamic blocks for google_access_context_manager_service_perimeter spec and status blocks.

This way, ensures that spec and status blocks are only created when there is a spec or status respectively.

• closes Permadiff in google_access_context_manager_service_perimeter #1176

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[calexandre]

@juliocc I'm gonna need some help on this one...I've gone through the logs, and I think this is failing due to the current test plan which is trying to create a case where it omits both the spec and status blocks leading to the given errors.

• The previous implementation always ensured that an empty array was created, which ensured the block's existence but led to the issue Permadiff in google_access_context_manager_service_perimeter #1176
• The new implementation completely omits the block, but creating a testing error issue.

I can help fix the tests, but I will need some guidance on that one...

What are your thoughts?

[juliocc]

So this PR is actually breaking tests. I'll leave it up to @ludoo since that's his stuff

[ludoo]

Hey Carlos, if you're not in too much of a hurry I can get to it this weekend. The change will probably impact the FAST security stage too, and I need to check it's not breaking stuff.

Not as simple as it seemed

[calexandre]

Hey Carlos, if you're not in too much of a hurry I can get to it this weekend. The change will probably impact the FAST security stage too, and I need to check it's not breaking stuff.

Sure thing. Let me know if you need anything else.

[ludoo]

Ok, so my reasoning is that you can only do that for spec, as the status block needs to be there even with no resources if you set use_explicit_dry_run_spec. If this is ok with you, I can merge this.

[calexandre]

Ok, so my reasoning is that you can only do that for spec, as the status block needs to be there even with no resources if you set use_explicit_dry_run_spec. If this is ok with you, I can merge this.

Sounds like a plan! Let's go with your suggestion 👍

[ludoo]

Thanks a lot for spotting this, and your patience while we checked the test errors! :)