Add netbox_ipam_role resource

[Sanverik]

No description provided.

[Sanverik]

@fbreckle please, review

[fbreckle]

I wonder if role is a good name for the resource. Clicking through the GUI, I see "Rack Roles", "Device Roles" and finally "Prefix/IPAM Roles" (which this MR is about). It might be confusing for the users.

It definitely threw me off, when I read through the MR, but then again, I do not do much IPAM myself. Is it obvious that "role" refers to the roles in the IPAM tab?

Any opionion on that?

Note: The API just calls the resource "Role" as well

[Sanverik]

In my point of view, all resources should have an additional prefix relaying on this folder structure:

So the name would be looking as netbox_<client>_<actual_resource_name> then you won’t have such misunderstandings or issues with naming.
BUT there are a lot of resources that already exist and do not follow this approach in your provider. I called it role because of:

• it’s only such resource with role suffix for now
• as you mentioned, the API also calls the resource as role

[Sanverik]

So netbox_role of netbox_ipam_role or <your_variant>? For me, it doesn't matter. I could do changes, just choose the right option for you

@fbreckle

[fbreckle]

I'd go with netbox_ipam_role.

For all previous items, IMHO it is unnecesarry to use a prefix, i.e. I find netbox_virtualization_virtual_machine somewhat unhandy. Role is the first one that feels unambiguous (edit: i mean ambiguous, obviously), so we should clarify.

Since these roles are for both prefixes and VLANs, netbox_prefix_role or netbox_vlan_role cannot be used.

[Sanverik]

@fbreckle review it again, please