Automation resources #1512

bgelens · 2018-07-06T14:06:55Z

New resources for Automation Services

azurerm_automation_module
azurerm_automation_dsc_configuration
azurerm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration

I am new to almost every aspect of this (including development in go) so if it's not that "good" I totally understand but I'm seeking to learn!

Technically, dsc_nodeconfiguration has a hard dependency on dsc_configuration. The portal creates an empty configuration using special magic but the API doesn't expose this coupling of actions.

lfshr · 2018-07-06T17:10:12Z

I totally didn't realise this was a PR and not an issue. Sorry bud, my last comment probably didn't make any sense.

bgelens · 2018-07-06T17:19:57Z

No worries! I figured as much.
I'm going on holiday without internet for the coming week so take your time for reviewing.

lfshr · 2018-07-06T17:11:39Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+				ForceNew: true,
+			},
+
+			"account_name": {


I would probably be explicit here and call this automation_account_name

Agreed, this should be automation_account_name

I was following already established Automation related resources like credential

resource "azurerm_automation_credential" "example" { name = "credential1" resource_group_name = "${azurerm_resource_group.example.name}" account_name = "${azurerm_automation_account.example.name}" username = "example_user" password = "example_pwd" description = "This is an example credential" }

Do I still need to change mine (it will result in inconsistent parameter naming)?

Ah. Makes me slightly sad but I'd probably say consistency over correctness 😢 @katbyte your call.

Or we could deprecate the account_name in azurerm_automation_credential.

Please do, the other resources are incorrect and will need to be changed eventually.

As much as I would usually agree in consistency over correctness, this isn't a very confusing change so for a new resource I'm going to go with its better to use the correct name.

I have already depreciated account_name in azurerm_automation_schedule, so feel free to apply that to the rest of the automation resources, preferably in a separate PR 🙂

lfshr · 2018-07-06T17:20:35Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

+				ForceNew: true,
+			},
+
+			"account_name": {


Same as above

lfshr · 2018-07-06T17:20:41Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration.go

+				ForceNew: true,
+			},
+
+			"account_name": {


Same as above

lfshr · 2018-07-06T17:22:57Z

I won't be doing the actual review, I'm really on the same boat as yourself re. GO. Only the one comment from my untrained eye. 😄

katbyte

Hello @bgelens,

Thank you for contributing these resources! In addition to the comments I have left inline each resource needs to be documented and added to the website directory and tags should be added to each one as well.

It seems you are not reading back into state the current state of the resource? This will prevent terraform from correcting any changes made outside of a plan/apply. Is there a reason for this?

Otherwise this is off to a good start, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask 🙂

katbyte · 2018-07-10T00:22:19Z

azurerm/config.go

+	automationCredentialClient           automation.CredentialClient
+	automationScheduleClient             automation.ScheduleClient
+	automationModuleClient               automation.ModuleClient
+	automationDscNodeConfigurationClient automation.DscNodeConfigurationClient


Could we get these in alphabetical order?

katbyte · 2018-07-10T00:22:56Z

azurerm/provider.go

@@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ func Provider() terraform.ResourceProvider {
 			"azurerm_automation_credential":                resourceArmAutomationCredential(),
 			"azurerm_automation_runbook":                   resourceArmAutomationRunbook(),
 			"azurerm_automation_schedule":                  resourceArmAutomationSchedule(),
+			"azurerm_automation_module":                    resourceArmAutomationModule(),
+			"azurerm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration":     resourceArmAutomationDscNodeConfiguration(),
+			"azurerm_automation_dsc_configuration":         resourceArmAutomationDscConfiguration(),


As above, could we put these into alphabetical order?

katbyte · 2018-07-10T00:23:19Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+				ForceNew: true,
+			},
+
+			"account_name": {


Agreed, this should be automation_account_name

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

katbyte · 2018-07-10T00:25:31Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+
+			"content": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeString,
+				Required: true,


Unless an empty string is valid, a quick validation.NoZeroValues would be nice to have here.

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration.go

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration_test.go

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

katbyte · 2018-07-10T00:44:27Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module_test.go

+			{
+				Config: testAccAzureRMAutomationModule_basic(ri, testLocation()),
+				Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
+					testCheckAzureRMAutomationModuleExists(resourceName),


Again, we should be checking the actual state of the resource after a apply not just if it exists.

In this case there is not much to check. If the resource exists is all I can test afaict

katbyte

Accidentally hit approve instead of request changes.

bgelens · 2018-07-27T10:59:47Z

I'm back from holiday.. sorry for the delayed response 😄 I will start working on the issues mentioned!

bgelens · 2018-08-07T18:19:20Z

Sorry I'm not making great progress. Working on it when I can. I'll request a new review once I have gone through all remarks (hopefully end of week)

JunyiYi · 2018-08-08T01:19:14Z

azurerm/config.go

+	setUserAgent(&dscNodeConfigurationClient.Client)
+	dscNodeConfigurationClient.Authorizer = auth
+	dscNodeConfigurationClient.Sender = sender
+	dscNodeConfigurationClient.SkipResourceProviderRegistration = c.skipProviderRegistration


These lines could be simplified to c.configureClient(&dscNodeConfigurationClient.Client, auth), take an example here: https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/blob/master/azurerm/config.go#L535.
Similar suggestion applies to the following 4 clients. #Closed

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

JunyiYi · 2018-08-08T01:26:21Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

+	}
+
+	if read.ID == nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("Cannot read Automation Module '%s' (resource group %s) ID", name, resGroup)


%s [](start = 52, length = 2)

We use %q instead of %s for name and resource group name.
This suggestion applies to all other code in this changeset as well. #Closed

I copied this from the other automation resources which where already part of the provider. Changed the resources in scope of PR but fyi, the others do still have %s

JunyiYi · 2018-08-08T01:29:24Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

+			return nil
+		}
+
+		return fmt.Errorf("Error issuing AzureRM delete request for Automation Module '%s': %+v", name, err)


minor Maybe reverse the condition here for clearer logic:

if err != nil { if !utils.ResponseWasNotFound(resp) { return fmt.Errorf(...) } }

This suggestion also applies to the other two resources as well.

I copied this from the other automation resources. Should we drift from these or clean them all up in one go through another PR?

JunyiYi · 2018-08-08T01:31:31Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

+func expandModuleLink(d *schema.ResourceData) automation.ContentLink {
+	inputs := d.Get("module_link").([]interface{})
+	input := inputs[0].(map[string]interface{})
+	uri := input["uri"].(string)


sidenote We have a shortcut here: uri := d.Get("module_link.0.uri").(string).

JunyiYi · 2018-08-08T01:33:25Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module_test.go

+				ResourceName:            resourceName,
+				ImportState:             true,
+				ImportStateVerify:       true,
+				ImportStateVerifyIgnore: []string{"module_link"},


ImportStateVerifyIgnore: []string{"module_link"}, [](start = 4, length = 49)

Why not import the module_link here? This should be the similar comment provided in resource_arm_automation_module.go.

the content link is not returned by the rest api in a get operation. This is the body I get returned:

{ "id": "/subscriptions/xxx/resourceGroups/xxx/providers/Microsoft.Automation/automationAccounts/xxxx/modules/xActiveDirectory", "name": "xActiveDirectory", "type": "Microsoft.Automation/AutomationAccounts/Modules", "location": "westeurope", "tags": {}, "etag": null, "properties": { "isGlobal": false, "version": "2.19.0.0", "sizeInBytes": 101851, "activityCount": 13, "creationTime": "2018-08-20T06:32:33.79+00:00", "lastModifiedTime": "2018-08-20T06:33:45.133+00:00", "error": { "code": null, "message": "" }, "provisioningState": "Succeeded", "isComposite": false } }

bgelens · 2018-08-24T06:02:10Z

@JunyiYi I've fixed your minor comments. I'll need to figure out what to do to reference the newer SDK once it is out so I can include the content fetch. Any pointers here would be greatly appreciated :)

@lfshr Please Go ahead creating that compilation resource! With regard to the psgallery translation, you think to embed that logic in the module resource? That would be a great addition IMO

lfshr · 2018-08-27T07:34:16Z

@bgelens see govendor for help on updating the vendor packages.

I'm not sure. I think I'll keep it the same as the swagger and maybe think about including it in the dsc_configuration as well.

bgelens · 2018-08-31T09:08:52Z

@JunyiYi I've updated to v20.0.0 for automation and added the content fetch for the dsc configuration resource (updated test accordingly).

JunyiYi

Hi @bgelens , thanks for the update. I have looked through the updated code carefully and most of the logic LGTM. I still have one question, why not set back content_embedded and module_link in DSC Node Configuration and Automation Module?

JunyiYi · 2018-09-06T20:43:50Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+	parameters := automation.DscConfigurationCreateOrUpdateParameters{
+		DscConfigurationCreateOrUpdateProperties: &automation.DscConfigurationCreateOrUpdateProperties{
+			LogVerbose:  utils.Bool(logVerbose),
+			Description: &description,


minor utils.String(description)

JunyiYi · 2018-09-06T20:44:15Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+			Description: &description,
+			Source: &automation.ContentSource{
+				Type:  automation.EmbeddedContent,
+				Value: &contentEmbedded,


minor utils.String(contentEmbedded)

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T00:59:13Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+				Value: &contentEmbedded,
+			},
+		},
+		Location: &location,


minor utils.String(location)

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T00:59:56Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+			},
+		},
+		Location: &location,
+		Name:     &name,


Is it necessary to pass name here? What will happen if we just leave it empty? Since name is already passed to the API in the following CreateOrUpdate call.

It will work in this case. Removed

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:04:56Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_configuration.go

+		d.Set("state", resp.State)
+	}
+
+	contentresp, contenterr := client.GetContent(ctx, resGroup, accName, name)


minor Just reuse local variable err here is fine.

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:10:13Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration.go

+		Configuration: &automation.DscConfigurationAssociationProperty{
+			Name: &configurationName,
+		},
+		Name: &name,


Can you confirm whether we need to pass name here or not?

It will fail validation.

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:10:51Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration.go

+	parameters := automation.DscNodeConfigurationCreateOrUpdateParameters{
+		Source: &automation.ContentSource{
+			Type:  automation.EmbeddedContent,
+			Value: &content,


minor Please prefer utils.*** functions to the address-of operator (&) here.

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:13:25Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration.go

+
+	d.Set("name", resp.Name)
+	d.Set("resource_group_name", resGroup)
+	d.Set("automation_account_name", accName)


Since DSC configuration API contains the content read function, is there any parity APIs for this resource?

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:15:28Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_dsc_nodeconfiguration_test.go

+}
+
+resource "azurerm_automation_dsc_configuration" "test" {
+  name                    = "test"


Similar to the comment above, all test resources names should start with acctest.

Same as previous reply. No need to do this

As mentioned above, we would prefer this to be name acctest.

JunyiYi · 2018-09-07T01:17:46Z

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go

+	d.Set("name", resp.Name)
+	d.Set("resource_group_name", resGroup)
+	d.Set("automation_account_name", accName)
+


module_link is not set back. So terraform will have no way to track it any more in its .tfstate file.

It is not part of the object state in Azure Automation account so it cannot be read back.

{ "id": "/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/bla/providers/Microsoft.Automation/automationAccounts/mytfaaaccount/modules/xActiveDirectory", "name": "xActiveDirectory", "type": "Microsoft.Automation/AutomationAccounts/Modules", "location": "westeurope", "tags": {}, "etag": null, "properties": { "isGlobal": false, "version": "2.19.0.0", "sizeInBytes": 101851, "activityCount": 13, "creationTime": "2018-08-20T08:32:33.79+02:00", "lastModifiedTime": "2018-08-24T07:56:43.897+02:00", "error": { "code": null, "message": "" }, "provisioningState": "Succeeded", "isComposite": false } }

…onfiguration

bgelens · 2018-09-09T18:28:13Z

@JunyiYi why not set back content_embedded and module_link in DSC Node Configuration and Automation Module? Unfortunately, getting the content_embedded for DSC Node configuration is not exposed via the API, nor is the module link for Automation module.

stale

bgelens · 2018-09-12T19:45:04Z

I changed the resource name to acctest for both test cases. No dashes are allowed so I hope this is ok like this.

bgelens · 2018-09-28T07:06:10Z

Wondering if there is anything else to fix or if it is ok like this? Thanks!

katbyte

Hi @bgelens,

Sorry for the delay in reviewing this, I've taken another quick look and it all LGTM now 🙂

katbyte · 2018-10-17T19:31:23Z

Tests pass:

==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -test.run=TestAccAzureRMAutoma -timeout 180m -ldflags="-X=github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/version.ProviderVersion=acc"
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationAccount_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationAccount_basic (75.32s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationAccount_complete
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationAccount_complete (70.27s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationCredential_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationCredential_basic (71.22s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationCredential_complete
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationCredential_complete (70.70s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationDscConfiguration_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationDscConfiguration_basic (74.23s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationDscNodeConfiguration_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationDscNodeConfiguration_basic (77.86s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationModule_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationModule_basic (73.08s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWorkflow
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWorkflow (73.43s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWorkflowWithHash
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWorkflowWithHash (73.03s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWithContent
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationRunbook_PSWithContent (76.68s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_basic (74.96s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_complete
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_complete (70.93s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_update
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_oneTime_update (81.99s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_hourly
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_hourly (70.93s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_daily
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_daily (71.28s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_weekly
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_weekly (70.92s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly (70.87s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_weekly_advanced
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_weekly_advanced (70.76s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly_advanced_by_day
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly_advanced_by_day (69.89s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly_advanced_by_week_day
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMAutomationSchedule_monthly_advanced_by_week_day (69.83s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm	1458.224s

bgelens · 2018-10-18T03:21:31Z

Great! Thanks :)

ghost · 2019-03-06T14:21:10Z

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!

lfshr reviewed Jul 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

katbyte approved these changes Jul 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

katbyte previously requested changes Jul 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

tombuildsstuff added waiting-response new-resource service/automation labels Jul 10, 2018

bgelens force-pushed the automationresources branch from 479ee2b to 4b23f8f Compare July 29, 2018 18:40

bgelens added 7 commits July 30, 2018 21:23

added resource automation_module

0a0b0bc

added resource for automation dsc configuration and nodeconfiguration

6fa2fd6

added tests

f5f8abd

sorted automation resources alphabetically

345d558

changed account_name to automation_account_name

94c976c

fix indentation issues

ac18fd4

added initial docs

f1c1e3e

bgelens force-pushed the automationresources branch from 1be38b7 to f1c1e3e Compare July 30, 2018 19:32

fixed rebase mistake

155d38b

metacpp requested a review from JunyiYi August 3, 2018 00:05

metacpp assigned JunyiYi Aug 3, 2018

JunyiYi reviewed Aug 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go Show resolved Hide resolved

JunyiYi reviewed Aug 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

azurerm/resource_arm_automation_module.go Show resolved Hide resolved

JunyiYi reviewed Aug 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

ghost added the size/XXL label Aug 24, 2018

bgelens added 2 commits August 31, 2018 09:35

vendoring azure go sdk v20.0.0 for automation

b2cbb32

added fetch of content for dsc_configuration and updated test

f192327

ghost added the size/XXL label Aug 31, 2018

JunyiYi reviewed Sep 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

make use of utils.String where applicable and removed name from dsc c…

872517e

…onfiguration

ghost added the size/XXL label Sep 9, 2018

Merge branch 'master' into automationresources

11926b1

bgelens force-pushed the automationresources branch from 608dfaf to 11926b1 Compare September 9, 2018 18:22

ghost added the size/XXL label Sep 9, 2018

renamed dsc configuration name to acctest for tests

10bd951

ghost added the size/XXL label Sep 12, 2018

katbyte approved these changes Oct 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into automationresources

71503c8

katbyte force-pushed the automationresources branch from 8d50edb to 71503c8 Compare October 17, 2018 19:00

katbyte added this to the 1.17.0 milestone Oct 17, 2018

katbyte merged commit 1c47f25 into hashicorp:master Oct 17, 2018

katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2018

Update CHANGELOG.md to include #1512

3302f1c

ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 6, 2019

ghost removed the waiting-response label Mar 6, 2019

Automation resources #1512

Automation resources #1512

Conversation

bgelens commented Jul 6, 2018

lfshr commented Jul 6, 2018

bgelens commented Jul 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lfshr commented Jul 6, 2018

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgelens commented Jul 27, 2018

bgelens commented Aug 7, 2018

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgelens commented Aug 24, 2018

lfshr commented Aug 27, 2018

bgelens commented Aug 31, 2018

JunyiYi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgelens Sep 9, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgelens commented Sep 9, 2018

bgelens commented Sep 12, 2018

bgelens commented Sep 28, 2018

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte commented Oct 17, 2018

bgelens commented Oct 18, 2018

ghost commented Mar 6, 2019

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

JunyiYi Aug 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

bgelens Sep 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading