azurerm_stream_analytics_function_javascript_udf - support new property is_configuration_parameter

[neil-yechenwei]

This PR is to support new property is_configuration_parameter.

--- PASS: TestAccStreamAnalyticsFunctionJavaScriptUDF_basic (239.56s)
--- PASS: TestAccStreamAnalyticsFunctionJavaScriptUDF_requiresImport (274.65s)
--- PASS: TestAccStreamAnalyticsFunctionJavaScriptUDF_isConfigurationParameter (354.59s)
--- PASS: TestAccStreamAnalyticsFunctionJavaScriptUDF_inputs (364.07s)

[stephybun]

I'm wondering whether this might be better as it's own block

Suggested change

	"is_configuration_parameter": {
	Type: pluginsdk.TypeBool,
	Optional: true,
	Default: false,
	},
	"configuration_parameter": {
	Type: pluginsdk.TypeList,
	Required: true,
	MinItems: 1,
	Elem: &pluginsdk.Resource{
	Schema: map[string]*pluginsdk.Schema{
	"type": {
	Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
	Required: true,
	ValidateFunc: validation.StringInSlice([]string{
	"any",
	"datetime",
	"array",
	"bigint",
	"float",
	"nvarchar(max)",
	"record",
	}, false),

[neil-yechenwei]

@stephybun ,

In the future, if service team expands the sub properties of the root property "FunctionInput", then we have to maintain two blocks and append these same sub properties in these two blocks.

And if service team expands new types of FunctionInput via introducing new sub properties, then we have to maintain more blocks for them.

So based on above reasons, I assume it would increase the cost of maintanence. Hence, I assume it's better to align with service api.

Does it make sense?

[katbyte]

Is there any different between a configuration and non configuration input parameter?

[neil-yechenwei]

@katbyte , There is no difference between them. I assume if there is difference between them, it's proper to split them into two blocks. But for this case, as there is no difference between them, I suggest keep them in one block to align with service api. Does it make sense? If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks.

[katbyte]

this makes sense, however it is quite an odd name. A single block sounds good but could we change the property name to configuration_parameter, making an exception for bools as is really stands out as wrong to me. WDYT?

[neil-yechenwei]

@katbyte , Updated property name from is_configuration_parameter to configuration_parameter.

[stephybun]

Thanks @neil-yechenwei, LGTM 👍

[github-actions]

This functionality has been released in v3.6.0 of the Terraform Provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template. Thank you!

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.