azurerm_sql_server - support for the extended_auditing_policy property

[yupwei68]

1.To add block code blob_extended_auditing_policy in resource_arm_sql_server to permit blob auditing policy stored in storage account.

2. The features in blob_auditing_policy are all inclusive in blob_extended_auditing_policy. And blob_extended_auditing_policy has one more feature predicate_expression

3.is_storage_secondary_key_in_use is available on portal(show as belows), so I have reserved this feature.

Fixes #2217

2020.3.5

[katbyte]

continuation of #4755

[tombuildsstuff]

hi @yupwei68

Thanks for this PR.

Since there's still review comments from #4755 pending (which I'm assuming you're working through) I'm going to hold off reviewing this for the moment - once those have been addressed we'll take another look through :)

Thanks!

[yupwei68]

Hi @tombuildsstuff , thanks for your comments. I have replied them in #4755. I have made the corresponding changes in this PR and DB PR #5049. Please review

[yupwei68]

hi @tombuildsstuff , any problem?

[yupwei68]

Hi @katbyte Thanks! Corresponding changes are pushed. I'll update sql database auditing after this is merged.

[katbyte]

Thanks for the changes @yupwei68, we're getting this close, left a couple more comments inline

[yupwei68]

Hi @katbyte Sure! Once merged, I shall update 'extending_auditing' for sql_db

[katbyte]

Thanks @yupwei68, this is real close now with just a couple minor comments left that need to be addressed before merge

[katbyte]

could we order these alphabetically?

[yupwei68]

So we don't need to put required fields in advance? We just order all required and optional fields alphabetically, right?

[katbyte]

WHoops missed the optional, yes typically alphabetically, but sometimes i'll order for aesthetics ie storage_endpoint -> storage_account_access_key -> storage_account_access_key_is_secondary

[katbyte]

could we order these alphabetically

[yupwei68]

The same concern. So we don't need to put required fields in advance? We just order all required and optional fields alphabetically, right?

[yupwei68]

Hi @katbyte , some concerns of the last two comments are left. Looking forward to get this PR merged!^ ^

[katbyte]

Thank for the change @yupwei68! LGTM now 👍

[ghost]

This has been released in version 2.1.0 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 = "~> 2.1.0"
}
# ... 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 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks!