azurerm_storage_share_file - Post hex decode then base64 encode the value of content_md5, to align with Azure expectation

[magodo]

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

This PR changes added post processs (i.e. hex decode then base64 encode the value) for the content_md5, to align with Azure expectation.

The current implementation of the content_md5 (i.e. plainly set the value to API) will fail the post md5 check when users try to download the file via azcopy, e.g.

2024/04/23 05:57:33 ERR: [P#0-T#0] DOWNLOADFAILED: https://mgdtestshare.file.core.windows.net/test/test : 000 : the MD5 hash of the data, as we received it, did not match the expected value, as found in the Blob/File Service. This means that either there is a data integrity error OR another tool has failed to keep the stored hash up to date. (NOTE In the specific case of downloading a Page Blob that has been used as a VM disk, the VM has probably changed the content since the hash was set. That's normal, and in that specific case you can simply disable the MD5 check. See the documentation for the check-md5 parameter.). When Checking MD5 hash. X-Ms-Request-Id:

Though this is technically a breaking change (for users who manually do the conversion before setting it in TF config), I still submit this change for two reasons:

1. Currently there is no trivial way to get the correct value natively in Terraform - mostly because there is a lack of way to convert from hex to byte (also terraform has no native representation for byte type), so most users are using this incorrectly
2. The azurerm_storage_blob resource has the same behavior that post-processes the content_md5

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.
• (For changes that include a state migration only). I have manually tested the migration path between relevant versions of the provider.

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)

By uploading the CHANGELOG.md file at this branch:

before (uploaded as test)

Failed to download the file as it failed the md5sum check:

after (uploaded as test2)

It is donwloaded successfully:

Change Log

Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.

• azurerm_storage_share_file - Post hex decode then base64 encode the value of content_md5, to align with Azure expectation [GH-00000]

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 #25704

Note

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

[jackofallops]

Hi @magodo - Can you take a look if a state migration is possible here for existing users to resolve/avoid the breaking change? I think it should be possible to take the existing value, and run it through the conversion function there to ensure existing users are unaffected?

Thanks

[magodo]

@jackofallops The breaking change here indicates the API behavior in terms of Create/Update. For existing users, there shouldn't be a diff. There is no need to add a state migration here as the Read didn't change at all, where it still set the content_md5 verbatim.

[manicminer]

Thanks for spotting this @magodo. Whilst it technically is a breaking behavioral change, since it's (a) inarguably buggy at present and (b) gated behind d.HasChange(), I think this is OK to merge 👍

[manicminer]

Accordingly, I've removed the breaking-change label since this should not affect existing configurations.

this shouldn't affect existing configs as there's no diff on read, and the update is behind d.HasChange

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.