Bug: List storage accounts returns only first page

[benjamin37]

When calling the current list storage account method it just returns the first page of storage accounts if the response is a paginated response. When the storage account that the provider is looking for is not in the first page I get the error message

Unable to locate Storage Account $STORAGE_ACCOUNT_NAME!

How to reproduce? In one of our subscriptions this happens when updating storage accounts relative consistently (about 10% of the calls). Sadly I found no setup to reproduce this paginated response consistently. If you find a way to consistently reproduce a paginated response form list storage accounts please let me know.

[tombuildsstuff]

hey @benjamin37

Thanks for this PR :)

Taking a look through this LGTM - due to the nature of this change this is going to be hard to test in an automated fashion (since, whilst we could provision a bunch of storage accounts, given we run the test suite in parallel there could be a dynamic number, plus Azure's quota's) - as such providing the regular tests pass I think we should be good here (since they call into this function)

Thanks!

[tombuildsstuff]

👋

I've run the tests for this PR but they fail due to a separate issue in master which has since been fixed (#5113), since this PR is branched off from that commit.

I've rebased this PR locally and run the Storage Container tests and this looks good:

$ acctests azurerm TestAccAzureRMStorageContainer_basic
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMStorageContainer_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccAzureRMStorageContainer_basic
=== CONT  TestAccAzureRMStorageContainer_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMStorageContainer_basic (126.26s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm	126.317s

.. as such I believe we're good here - thanks again for this PR / apologies for the delay with this one.

Thanks!

[ghost]

This has been released in version 1.39.0 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 = "~> 1.39.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

[ghost]

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!