Vpc20 service profile support #1286
Conversation
annakhm
force-pushed
the
vpc20-service-profile2
branch
3 times, most recently
from
29e0755 to
f1e1ec4
Compare
| SdkFieldName: "IsDefault", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "mac_discovery_profile": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Various profiles are policy paths? If so, they can be validated with validatePolicyPath()
| var err error | ||
| parents := getVpcParentsFromContext(sessionContext) | ||
| client := clientLayer.NewVpcServiceProfilesClient(connector) | ||
| _, err = client.Get(parents[0], parents[1], id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is simpler to take org/project/VPC from context than loading these into parents array and using from there
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the generator this way is a cleaner and more readable option I think. The only difference is function name, rather than rewriting the whole block.
| testResourceName := "nsxt_vpc_service_profile.test" | ||
|
|
||
| resource.ParallelTest(t, resource.TestCase{ | ||
| PreCheck: func() { testAccPreCheck(t); testAccOnlyMultitenancy(t) }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I'm not sure if that should be tested with multitenancy or with VPC env. For now definitely with VPC as it runs on v9.0 (these tests will fail with v4.1.2).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be part of VPC test suite later on too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So let's replace testAccOnlyMultitenancy(t) with testAccOnlyVPC(t)
annakhm
force-pushed
the
vpc20-service-profile2
branch
from
f1e1ec4 to
b16de35
Compare
Extended tests will be added as follow up Signed-off-by: Anna Khmelnitsky <[email protected]>
annakhm
force-pushed
the
vpc20-service-profile2
branch
from
b16de35 to
8b44c1b
Compare
Extended tests will be added as follow up