BREAKING CHANGE: SqlDatabaseOwner: Support multi-instances

[apichaya-s]

Pull Request (PR) description

Support multi-instances

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues

Fixes #1197

Task list

• [ x ] Added an entry under the Unreleased section in the CHANGELOG.md? Entry
  should say what was changed, and how that affects users (if applicable).
• Resource documentation added/updated in README.md?
• [ x ] Resource parameter descriptions added/updated in README.md, schema.mof
  and comment-based help?
• Comment-based help added/updated?
• Localization strings added/updated in all localization files as appropriate?
• Examples appropriately added/updated?
• Unit tests added/updated?
  See DSC Resource Testing Guidelines.
• Integration tests added/updated (where possible)?
  See DSC Resource Testing Guidelines.
• New/changed code adheres to
  DSC Resource Style Guidelines
  and Best Practices?

---

This change is 

[msftclas]

All CLA requirements met.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1204 into dev will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@         Coverage Diff          @@
##            dev   #1204   +/-   ##
====================================
  Coverage    97%     97%           
====================================
  Files        33      33           
  Lines      4016    4016           
====================================
  Hits       3929    3929           
  Misses       87      87

[johlju]

@apichaya-s Thank you for sending in this fix! I'm out of time today, but will review as soon as I can.

[johlju]

Great work on this one! Just a few minor comments.

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @apichaya-s)

a discussion (no related file):
Can we add another instance of the resource to this example, to test that two different instances can update the same database name? The examples are compiled during testing so it's one kind of regression test.
https://github.com/PowerShell/SqlServerDsc/blob/dev/Examples/Resources/SqlDatabaseOwner/1-SetDatabaseOwner.ps1

---

a discussion (no related file):
We should update the type qualifier from Write to Key for the parameter InstanceName in the README.md.

---

---

CHANGELOG.md, line 10 at r2 (raw file):

    [Nick Reilingh (@NReilingh)](https://github.com/NReilingh)
- Changes to SqlDatabaseOwner
  - Support multi-instances which is the instance cannot be omitted

I think this is a breaking change, since existing configuration will break if they haven't specified the instance name since the default value was 'MSSQLSERVER'? If so I think we have to prefix this entry with 'BREAKING CHANGE:'.

- Changes to SqlDatabaseOwner
  - BREAKING CHANGE: Support...

---

DSCResources/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner.psm1, line 44 at r2 (raw file):

        [ValidateNotNullOrEmpty()]
        [System.String]
        $InstanceName = 'MSSQLSERVER'

We should remove the default value from this since it is mandatory now.

---

DSCResources/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner.psm1, line 119 at r2 (raw file):

        $ServerName = $env:COMPUTERNAME,

        [Parameter(Mandatory = $true)]

We should remove the default value from this since it is mandatory now.

---

DSCResources/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner/MSFT_SqlDatabaseOwner.psm1, line 194 at r2 (raw file):

        $ServerName = $env:COMPUTERNAME,

        [Parameter(Mandatory = $true)]

We should remove the default value from this since it is mandatory now.

[apichaya-s]

Code fixed, please review

[johlju]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r3.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[johlju]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @apichaya-s)

---

CHANGELOG.md, line 10 at r3 (raw file):

Support multi-instances which is the instance cannot be omitted

Maybe the text reads better as "Support multiple instances on the same node. The parameter InstanceName is now Key and cannot be omitted."?

[johlju]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[johlju]

That is what I get for LGTM before the tests has finished 😉

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[johlju]

@apichaya-s Awesome work on this one. Thanks!