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

Updated policy section to clarify usage #4433

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 15, 2019
Merged

Conversation

jeanpaulsmit
Copy link
Contributor

In the previous version there was a reference to the Policy block, but nowhere was to be found how to add this to the API Management resource itself. The update shows an example so users don't need to go through the code to find out how to use it.

In the previous version there was a reference to the Policy block, but nowhere was to be found how to add this to the API Management resource itself. The update shows an example so users don't need to go through the code to find out how to use it.
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.

Hi @jeanpaulsmit,

Thank you for the PR, adding an example is great. However maybe we could add it to the example at the top for consistency with the rest of the docs? WDYT?

@katbyte katbyte added this to the v1.36.0 milestone Oct 5, 2019
@jeanpaulsmit
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @katbyte, thanks for getting back on this. Either is fine by me, I only want to save others from searching how to put a certain block in the TF template. I can imagine the example to be part of the topic where it's described, but I also think it would be helpful to have some kind of generic example on how the optional sections are meant to be defined.

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Oct 5, 2019
@mbfrahry
Copy link
Member

mbfrahry commented Oct 7, 2019

Hey @jeanpaulsmit, let's go ahead and make this another full example similar to how we do it in virtual_network_peering and remove it from the attribute description. We just try to promote consistency in our docs wherever we can and seeing an example at the top of the page should be enough. Another next step would be to also add an example in the examples folder.

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.

Hi @jeanpaulsmit,

As we have not heard back in the last week i've updated the PR with the desired changes to get this merged. Thanks for helping us make the docs better!

@katbyte katbyte merged commit d8fefed into hashicorp:master Oct 15, 2019
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 29, 2019

This has been released in version 1.36.0 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 = "~> 1.36.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Oct 29, 2019
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 14, 2019

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 Nov 14, 2019
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.

3 participants