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

update network peering custom routes #4138

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 23, 2020

Conversation

c2thorn
Copy link
Member

@c2thorn c2thorn commented Oct 22, 2020

Fixes: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#5971
Upstreams/Updates: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#6020

Updated the original PR to be consistent with general changes made to the providers since the PR was pushed. Added a few other fixes to both the update logic and tests.

If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:

  • Searched through the issue tracker for an open issue that this either resolves or contributes to, commented on it to claim it, and written "fixes {url}" or "part of {url}" in this PR description. If there were no relevant open issues, I opened one and commented that I would like to work on it (not necessary for very small changes).
  • Generated Terraform, and ran make test and make lint to ensure it passes unit and linter tests.
  • Ensured that all new fields I added that can be set by a user appear in at least one example (for generated resources) or third_party test (for handwritten resources or update tests).
  • Ran relevant acceptance tests (If the acceptance tests do not yet pass or you are unable to run them, please let your reviewer know).
  • Read the Release Notes Guide before writing my release note below.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

compute: added support for non-destructive updates to `export_custom_routes` and `import_custom_routes` for `google_compute_network_peering`

Co-authored-by: Cameron Thornton <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: angie pinilla <[email protected]>
@google-cla
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Oct 22, 2020

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: no label Oct 22, 2020
@c2thorn c2thorn added cla: yes and removed cla: no labels Oct 22, 2020
@c2thorn
Copy link
Member Author

c2thorn commented Oct 22, 2020

This is in the third_party directory where the CLA does not apply.

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Diff report:

Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-))
Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-))

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

I have triggered VCR tests based on this PR's diffs. See the results here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=153624"

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

I have triggered VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the following tests that failed during VCR: TestAccDataSourceSpannerInstance_basic|TestAccComputeNetworkPeering_customRoutesUpdate You can view the result here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=153643"

Copy link
Contributor

@slevenick slevenick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine, but maybe a couple of those fields should still be ForceNew? Can we actually update any field other than the network field?

@slevenick slevenick self-requested a review October 23, 2020 20:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make change on google_compute_network_peering non destructive
3 participants