New RP Palo Alto

[jackofallops]

Adds new RP Palo Alto, consisting of

• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_certificate
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_fqdn_list
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_outbound_trust_certificate_association
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_outbound_untrust_certificate_association
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_prefix_list
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack_rule
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_virtual_network_appliance
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_next_generation_firewall_virtual_hub_local_rulestack
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_next_generation_firewall_virtual_hub_panorama
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_next_generation_firewall_virtual_network_local_rulestack
• New Resource: azurerm_palo_alto_next_generation_firewall_virtual_network_panorama
• New Data Source: azurerm_palo_alto_local_rulestack

[tombuildsstuff]

hey @jackofallops

Thanks for this PR - I've taken a look through and left some comments inline, but on the whole this is looking pretty good.

In general most of the comments fall under:

1. Schema consistency (for example removing None as a value in favour of omitting the value
2. Field naming consistency (e.g. using public_ip_address_id rather than public_ip_id etc)
3. Resource naming consistency (e.g. virtual_hub rather than vhub)
4. Extended timeouts for the resources (as discussed offline) - these are currently 2h for testing purposes, but can likely be reduced
5. Working through the remaining TODOs
6. Validating the API Response has a model (if model := resp.Model; model != nil { .. })
7. Missing documentation for the new data source/resources

However on the whole this is looking pretty good, so nice work - if we can fix those comments up then this should otherwise be good to go 👍

Thanks!

[tombuildsstuff]

hey @jackofallops

Thanks for this PR - I've taken a look through and left some comments inline, but on the whole this is looking pretty good.

In general most of the comments fall under:

1. Schema consistency (for example removing None as a value in favour of omitting the value
2. Field naming consistency (e.g. using public_ip_address_id rather than public_ip_id etc)
3. Resource naming consistency (e.g. virtual_hub rather than vhub)
4. Extended timeouts for the resources (as discussed offline) - these are currently 2h for testing purposes, but can likely be reduced
5. Working through the remaining TODOs
6. Validating the API Response has a model (if model := resp.Model; model != nil { .. })
7. Missing documentation for the new data source/resources

However on the whole this is looking pretty good, so nice work - if we can fix those comments up then this should otherwise be good to go 👍

Thanks!

[tombuildsstuff]

A few minor comments but 👍

[keisari-ch]

hi @jackofallops ,
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/azurerm/latest/docs/resources/palo_alto_next_generation_firewall_virtual_network_panorama#public_ip_address

shouldnt this be private_ip_address instead ?