Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Azure Policy: 'mode' shouldn't force new Policy #7976

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 20, 2020

Conversation

logachev
Copy link
Contributor

It is possible to change Azure Policy Mode (All\Indexed) via the portal for existing policy, so it doesn't required ForceNew when changed.

Testing:
Deployed the policy & changed mode multiple times. Changes were reflected via the Azure Portal

provider "azurerm" {
    features{}
}

resource "azurerm_policy_definition" "policy" {
  name         = "accTestPolicy"
  policy_type  = "Custom"
  mode         = "Indexed"
  display_name = "acceptance test policy definition"

  metadata = <<METADATA
    {
    "category": "General"
    }

METADATA


  policy_rule = <<POLICY_RULE
    {
    "if": {
      "not": {
        "field": "location",
        "in": "[parameters('allowedLocations')]"
      }
    },
    "then": {
      "effect": "audit"
    }
  }
POLICY_RULE


  parameters = <<PARAMETERS
    {
    "allowedLocations": {
      "type": "Array",
      "metadata": {
        "description": "The list of allowed locations for resources.",
        "displayName": "Allowed locations",
        "strongType": "location"
      }
    }
  }
PARAMETERS
}

Copy link
Contributor

@ArcturusZhang ArcturusZhang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @logachev thanks for this PR!

While this looks great to me, could you please add one test case for this? For instance, a test case that change the mode from All to Indexed and then back to All.

Also could you also please change the doc page - removing the Changing this resource forces a new resource to be created. statement?

@ghost ghost added size/M and removed size/XS labels Aug 17, 2020
@ghost ghost added the documentation label Aug 17, 2020
@logachev
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArcturusZhang thanks for the feedback! Update this PR with new acceptance test & documentation change.

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Aug 17, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@ArcturusZhang ArcturusZhang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍 thanks @logachev

@WodansSon WodansSon added this to the v2.24.0 milestone Aug 18, 2020
@logachev

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍

@tombuildsstuff
Copy link
Member

Tests pass:

Screenshot 2020-08-20 at 16 31 32

@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff merged commit 4412e0b into hashicorp:master Aug 20, 2020
tombuildsstuff added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2020
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 20, 2020

This has been released in version 2.24.0 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 = "~> 2.24.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 19, 2020

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!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 19, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants