Adds databricks_volumes as data source

[karolusz]

Changes

Adds databricks_volumes data source.

A set of volumes ids (full names) becomes available as a data source, in a similar fashion to existing Unity Catalogs objects data sources (e.g. databricks_schemas or databricks_tables).

Closes #3133

Tests

• make test run locally
• relevant change in docs/ folder
• covered with integration tests in internal/acceptance
• relevant acceptance tests are passing
• using Go SDK

[tanmay-db]

This looks good to me, however there is concern of usability of list of ids instead of getting information for each id. We should also have databricks_volume resource so we can query information for each id.

In list of ids, maybe we should provide their respective names as well because getting a list of ids won't be very useful in their own. Let's discuss this more in terraform office hours today.

We do this for other data sources as well for example: databricks_share, databricks_service_principal

[karolusz]

This looks good to me, however there is concern of usability of list of ids instead of getting information for each id. We should also have databricks_volume resource so we can query information for each id.

In list of ids, maybe we should provide their respective names as well because getting a list of ids won't be very useful in their own. Let's discuss this more in terraform office hours today.

We do this for other data sources as well for example: databricks_share, databricks_service_principal

The only viable use currently would be to loop over all volumes in the schema when creating databricks_grants resources for those volumes.

databricks_shares and databricks_service_principals data sources return some list of identifiers, which then allows you to reference specific instances of those resources via databricks_share and databricks_service_principal.

Please let me know what is decided internally and I would be happy to make the adjustments accordingly.

[tanmay-db]

LGTM given we have similar data sources for schemas, metastores so this is consistent with that.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (fe54a55) 83.54% compared to head (dca634c) 83.56%.
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3150      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.54%   83.56%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         168      169       +1     
  Lines       15034    15045      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        12560    12572      +12     
+ Misses       1733     1732       -1     
  Partials      741      741              

Files	Coverage Δ
catalog/data_volumes.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
provider/provider.go	94.47% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[karolusz]

this will need a little rework after the latest changes

[karolusz]

Small changes were made to solve a merge conflict.