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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

new resource "azurerm_spring_cloud_java_deployment" and "azurerm_spring_cloud_active_deployment" #9959

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 22, 2021
Merged

new resource "azurerm_spring_cloud_java_deployment" and "azurerm_spring_cloud_active_deployment" #9959

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 22, 2021

Conversation

njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor

@njuCZ njuCZ commented Dec 21, 2020 •
edited

The service team has refactored the API design, active deployment could be deleted now.

now spring cloud deployment could support different runtime: java and dotnet. We are going to split it into different resources and support java deployment first

this PR adds two resources: azurerm_spring_cloud_java_deployment and azurerm_spring_cloud_active_deployment

image

@mybayern1974
Copy link
Collaborator

@jackofallops to possibly help review this Azure Spring Cloud Deployment resource.

jackofallops
jackofallops requested changes Jan 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jackofallops jackofallops left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @njuCZ
Thanks for this PR, and apologies for the delay in review.

Things are looking pretty good, I've left some comments and suggestions below. I think it would be wise/cleaner to rebase against current master before addressing the comments as there have been dependency and linter updates as well as quite a few refactoring PRs.

azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

njuCZ commented Jan 14, 2021 •
edited

@jackofallops thanks for your sugestions! I have rebased the latest master branch and updated according to your suggestions. Could you have a look again?

image

@njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

njuCZ commented Jan 15, 2021

@jackofallops I have rebase the latest master branch, and now this PR are using stable api version.
One thing that may need attention: in this api version, instanceCount field is renamed as capacity in the sku struct, but the service team still hopes to use instance_count, which is align to cli, powershell and portal

jackofallops
jackofallops requested changes Jan 20, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jackofallops jackofallops left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @njuCZ for the updates. Just a few more items below, and I think we'll be good to test and merge.

azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_active_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_java_deployment_resource.go Outdated
Comment on lines 133 to 138
if sku := service.Sku; sku != nil {
if sku.Name != nil {
skuName = *sku.Name
skuTier = *sku.Tier
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a valid case where we'd get an empty response back for these values? Feels like we should error if we don't have concrete values, rather than assume them?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

there should be no such case, I am just doing Defensive programming. I have changed it to throw error.

azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_java_deployment_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/springcloud/spring_cloud_java_deployment_resource_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/spring_cloud_java_deployment.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

njuCZ commented Jan 21, 2021

@jackofallops thanks for your suggestion and I have refined this PR. I have rerun the acctest in my local and all could pass. About the website-test CI fail, it seems not related with this PR.

@jackofallops
Copy link
Member

@jackofallops thanks for your suggestion and I have refined this PR. I have rerun the acctest in my local and all could pass. About the website-test CI fail, it seems not related with this PR.

Thanks @njuCZ - We've addressed the failed website-test Action in the main branch, so that's fine. I've run the tests, so I'll post the results here shortly and get this merged, so it should be released in v2.45.0 next week.

@jackofallops
Copy link
Member

Tests Passing:
image

@jackofallops jackofallops merged commit 41500b6 into hashicorp:master Jan 22, 2021
jackofallops added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2021
@jackofallops
Update CHANGELOG.md for #9959
b0aa700
@jackofallops jackofallops added this to the v2.45.0 milestone Jan 22, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 28, 2021

This has been released in version 2.45.0 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 = "~> 2.45.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 21, 2021

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 as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 21, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@jackofallops jackofallops jackofallops approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
documentation size/XXL
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v2.45.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@njuCZ @mybayern1974 @jackofallops