commonschema: adding support for Extended Location #97
Conversation
This is a kind of location which has more dynamic names than for the location field as such we'll have to leave this with lax validation for now.
| func ExtendedLocation() *schema.Schema { | ||
| return &schema.Schema{ | ||
| Type: schema.TypeString, | ||
| Required: true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @tombuildsstuff . Per my understanding, seems it's an optional property. If I am wrong, please correct me. Because it allows customers to take advantage of more granular locations when this property is set. If user doesn't set it, the resource would be deployed to normal location like "West Europe". Does it make sense?
| ForceNew: true, | ||
| StateFunc: location.StateFunc, | ||
| DiffSuppressFunc: location.DiffSuppressFunc, | ||
| ValidateFunc: validation.StringIsNotEmpty, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though there is a list API to retrieve available extended locations, but it has to be whitelisted by service team first before calling this API. So I assume here is not proper to add a property validation using this API for extendedLocation like the location validation to validate available extendedLocation since it would break existing users/resources when user already knew the extended location so that user doesn't want this check. So if added property validation here, user has to gain the additional permission for this check even if it's unnecessary to users. Does it make sense?
|
|
This is a kind of location which has more dynamic names than for the location field as such we'll have to leave this with lax validation for now.