Acctest: Add back the missing provider config

[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 comments along the lines of "+1", "me too" or "any updates", they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

This PR is to add back the missing provider config for the acctests, which is now required as a result of the PR: #27936.

This PR is constructed via the following procedures:

• I've forked and modified the terraform-plugin-testing, to make it only write out configurations to a output directory in the form of:

.
├── TestAccAadB2cDirectoryDataSource_basic
│   └── 0
│       └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
├── TestAccAadB2cDirectoryResource_basic
│   └── 0
│       └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
├── TestAccAadB2cDirectoryResource_domainNameUnavailable
│   └── 0
│       └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
├── TestAccAadB2cDirectoryResource_requiresImport
│   └── 0
│       └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
├── TestAccAadB2cDirectoryResource_update
│   ├── 0
│   │   └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
│   ├── 3
│   │   └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
│   └── 6
│       └── terraform_plugin_test.tf
...

Note that the following test case and steps are not exported:

• The test case is ignored due to some environment variables are not set, or some other reasons. As these test cases are manually triggerd, should be fine to leave them as is.
• The import step (and the corresponding refresh step). Since these steps not have valid config at all.

(The branch is at: https://github.com/magodo/terraform-plugin-testing/tree/config_print)

I then replace the module with my fork above, go mod tidy && go mod vendor, then run the command below:

$ TF_OUTDIR=/tmp/test TF_ACC=1 go test -v -timeout=20h -run=. ./internal/services/*

This exports the test cases/steps into /tmp/test with above folder structure, where each file represents the effective config for each test step.

Next thing is to run grep (too lazy to write a HCL parsing tool for this case) in the /tmp/test folder:

1. grep -rL "provider .*azurerm.* {" .: This returns the ones that has no provider config defined at all.
2. grep -r "provider .*azurerm.* {" . | awk -F: '{count[$1]++} END {for (file in count) print file, count[file]}' | awk '$2 != 1': This returns the ones have provider config defined multiple times

With the change of this PR, there is no entry for the 1st case. For the 2nd case, I get the followings:

• ./TestAccDataSourceNetAppVolume_basic/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2
• ./TestAccDataSourceNetAppVolume_backupPolicy/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2
• ./TestAccStorageAccountCustomerManagedKey_remoteKeyVault/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2
• ./TestAccStorageAccount_customerManagedKeyRemoteKeyVault/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2
• ./TestAccNetAppVolume_volEncryptionCmkSystemAssigned/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2
• ./TestAccNetAppVolume_volEncryptionCmkUserAssigned/0/terraform_plugin_test.tf 2

The TestAccDataSourceNetAppVolume and TestAccStorageAccountCustomerManagedKey ones are due to there is the azurerm-alt provider defined. While the TestAccNetAppVolume ones are existing errors, introduced in #27188 (TC: https://hashicorp.teamcity.com/buildConfiguration/TF_AzureRM_AZURERM_SERVICE_PUBLIC_NETAPP/266596?buildTab=tests&status=failed), and I'd rather leave them untouched.

Finally, I created a root main.tf, and reference all the folders as submodules. With some reasonable modifications, the terraform init succeeded, which at least proves there is no duplicate provider configurations. To ensure each one has the valid provider configuration, things become challenging, as some of the existing configurations themselves are problematic. I don't know the exact number of them (there are >10000 modules). Up to this point, it should be good to go/test for a couple of big RPs.

Regarding the fixes, I'd like to mention the principle I've been following:

• Add the provider config at the base/template ones
• Sometimes, the base/template is injected to a function, which has the provider config defined already. In this case, I'll duplicate the base/template (transitively) with the name WithOutProvider, and remove the provider config inside the original base/template. Then use this new variation function instead

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)

Change Log

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

• azurerm_resource - support for the thing1 property [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 #0000

Note

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

[magodo]

The CI failure is not from this PR, and it seems to be a false alert for the TestAccClientConfigDataSource_basic test case.

[jackofallops]

Thanks @magodo - This LGTM 👍

[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.