Add support for the extendedLocation property

[neil-yechenwei]

This PR is to support extendedLocation (aka: EdgeZone). It allows customers to take advantage of more granular locations, which means it offers Azure capacity close to the customer to address the low latency and high throughput requirements and Data Residency requirements of the applications.

--- PASS: TestAccLinuxVirtualMachine_otherExtendedLocation (660.57s)
--- PASS: TestAccLinuxVirtualMachineScaleSet_otherExtendedLocation (667.46s)
--- PASS: TestAccWindowsVirtualMachine_otherExtendedLocation (607.88s)
--- PASS: TestAccWindowsVirtualMachineScaleSet_otherExtendedLocation (621.62s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMLoadBalancer_extendedLocation (443.23s)
--- PASS: TestAccManagedDisk_extendedLocation (362.24s)
--- PASS: TestAccNetworkInterface_extendedLocation (471.21s)
--- PASS: TestAccPublicIpStatic_extendedLocation (605.98s)
--- PASS: TestAccVirtualNetwork_extendedLocation (401.62s)
--- PASS: TestAccStorageAccount_extendedLocation (2512.72s)
--- PASS: TestAccVirtualNetworkGateway_extendedLocation (2976.97s)

[tombuildsstuff]

@neil-yechenwei apologies for the delay reviewing this one - can you rebase this PR?

[neil-yechenwei]

@tombuildsstuff , I've updated PR. Please take another look. Thanks.

[tombuildsstuff]

There's an internal thread tracking clarification to the design of this resource - as Extended Location is a struct here we want to confirm the design is correct.

[tombuildsstuff]

Also dependent on hashicorp/go-azure-helpers#97

[tombuildsstuff]

@DwayneNeed I can't reply to your thread inline for some reason - but yes I'd agree that Extended Locations would make a reasonable Data Source here

[tombuildsstuff]

hi @neil-yechenwei

I've spent some time digging into this PR this week and whilst this is off to a good start unfortunately we need to take a different direction here.

Whilst I initially started out trying to fix this PR up, since there's a non-trivial number of changes needed it ended up being quicker to take a fresh branch and make these to ensure these are all up to date, rather than trying to retroactively fix this PR.

As such I hope you don't mind but I'm going to close this PR in favour of #15890 which switches to using commonschema types for these, which'll allow us to support this functionality.

Thanks!

[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.