new resource: azurerm_servicebus_namespace_authorization_rule #1498
Conversation
katbyte
commented
Jul 5, 2018
katbyte
commented
- New resource azurerm_servicebus_namespace_authorization_rule
- fixed service bus example
- added namespace name validation everywhere
| d.Set("primary_key", keysResp.PrimaryKey) | ||
| d.Set("primary_connection_string", keysResp.PrimaryConnectionString) | ||
| d.Set("secondary_key", keysResp.SecondaryKey) | ||
| d.Set("secondary_connection_string", keysResp.SecondaryConnectionString) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we access rights -> secondary_connection_string via the [XX]Properties object & nil-check them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are no properties object returned by list keys.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func flattenServiceBusAuthorizationRuleRights(rights *[]servicebus.AccessRights) *schema.Set { | ||
| slice := make([]interface{}, 0, 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor we don't actually need this last index
| "github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform" | ||
|
|
||
| "github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/utils" | ||
| "strconv" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor can we fix the imports here?
|
|
||
| for _, tc := range cases { | ||
| t.Run(tc.Name, func(t *testing.T) { | ||
| testAccAzureRMServiceBusNamespaceAuthorizationRule(t, tc.Rights) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whilst this makes it more readable - this means it's not possible to run these tests individually; can we split them out as regular tests?
| string(servicebus.Manage), | ||
| }, true), | ||
| }, | ||
| Set: set.HashStringIgnoreCase, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we switch this over to using Bools rather than a Set, since this makes the diff clearer (and then these can be inferred)?
| return fmt.Errorf("Not found: %s", name) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| name := rs.Primary.Attributes["name"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor recently we've been renaming this field to avoid conflicting with the name parameter - it may be worth doing that here for consistency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rename the variable or the property?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the variable, but it's not a big deal/blocker
|
|
||
| # azurerm_servicebus_namespace_authorization_rule | ||
|
|
||
| Manages a ServiceBus Namespace authorization Rule within a ServiceBus Topic. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would this make more sense as Manages a ServiceBus Authorization Rule scoped at the Namespace level?
| page_title: "Azure Resource Manager: azurerm_servicebus_namespace_authorization_rule" | ||
| sidebar_current: "docs-azurerm-resource-servicebus-namespace-authorization-rule" | ||
| description: |- | ||
| Manages a ServiceBus Namespace authorization Rule within a ServiceBus Topic. |
katbyte
force-pushed
the
f-servicebus-namespace-sas
branch
3 times, most recently
from
41c9297 to
45110ab
Compare
|
Requested updates made, mind giving it another quick review @tombuildsstuff ? |
katbyte
force-pushed
the
f-servicebus-namespace-sas
branch
from
45110ab to
d88b999
Compare
katbyte
force-pushed
the
f-servicebus-namespace-sas
branch
from
d88b999 to
f387eac
Compare
| "send": { | ||
| Type: schema.TypeBool, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| Computed: true, //because we set this to true if managed is chosen |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
send and listen want default values of false since otherwise it's not possible to disable send/listen by simply removing the code / explicitly setting these values to false, which is misleading (as is an option in other providers, but we're having to work around due to the SDK)
|
|
||
| resource "azurerm_servicebus_namespace" "example" { | ||
| name = "${var.servicebus_name}" | ||
| location = "${var.location}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
neither of these variables exists in this context - can we hard-code example values here? e.g. myservicebusnamespace / ${azurerm_resource_group.example.location} respectively
|
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
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
