Skip to content
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

Add primary & secondary connection string to 'azurerm_iothub_dps_shared_access_policy' #5231

Merged
merged 204 commits into from
Dec 31, 2019

Conversation

jackbatzner
Copy link
Contributor

@jackbatzner jackbatzner commented Dec 20, 2019

Add primary_connection_string and secondary_connection_string to azurerm_iothub_dps_shared_access_policy

--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMIotHubDpsSharedAccessPolicy_writeWithoutRead (151.97s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMIotHubDpsSharedAccessPolicy_enrollmentReadWithoutRegistration (166.87s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMIotHubDpsSharedAccessPolicy_enrollmentWriteWithoutOthers (205.74s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMIotHubDpsSharedAccessPolicy_basic (273.52s)

@ghost ghost added the size/S label Dec 20, 2019
@ghost ghost added the documentation label Dec 20, 2019
Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a 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 @Brunhil, aside from needing some nil checks this is looking great.

azurerm/resource_arm_iothub_dps_shared_access_policy.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jackbatzner jackbatzner requested a review from katbyte December 30, 2019 13:18
@jackbatzner
Copy link
Contributor Author

Would it be easier if I created a new PR with the provider reorganization changes or pulled the changes in after the PR is approved @katbyte ?

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Dec 30, 2019
Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Brunhil, Either or would work. Just one comment i've left inline that once addressed this'll be good to merge

azurerm/resource_arm_iothub_dps_shared_access_policy.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ghost ghost added size/XXL and removed size/S labels Dec 31, 2019
@ghost ghost added size/S and removed size/XXL labels Dec 31, 2019
@jackbatzner
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Brunhil, Either or would work. Just one comment i've left inline that once addressed this'll be good to merge

End result for PR is ugly, but rebase is done :). Let me know your thoughts!

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Dec 31, 2019
@jackbatzner jackbatzner requested a review from katbyte December 31, 2019 03:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the revisions @Brunhil! LGTM now 👍

@katbyte katbyte merged commit e8859f5 into hashicorp:master Dec 31, 2019
katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 31, 2019
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 8, 2020

This has been released in version 1.40.0 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 = "~> 1.40.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@jackbatzner jackbatzner deleted the add_iothubdps_sap_conn_string branch March 14, 2020 14:48
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2020

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!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 14, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants