azurerm_web_application_firewall_policy: add http_listener_ids and path_based_rule_ids #10860
Conversation
|
@favoretti I'd like your input on whether I've placed the subresource ID parse/validate functions in the right files, as my first commit placed them inside files that are overwritten by go:generate. |
|
@sirlatrom I need to take a deeper look at this, but can't you just use the generators to generate these ID functions, rather than creating them by hand? |
@favoretti I'd love to! How do I get started? |
|
@sirlatrom Just add them here and go generate will generate them for you. |
azurerm/internal/services/network/web_application_firewall_policy_resource.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…th_based_rule_ids Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
…arate files Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
…urces Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
…e_ids Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sune Keller <[email protected]>
|
Rebased on origin/master. |
|
@katbyte Is there any chance this PR could get on the next milestone? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the pr @sirlatrom - aside from one comment i've left inline this is looking good!
| if err := d.Set("managed_rules", flattenWebApplicationFirewallPolicyManagedRulesDefinition(webApplicationFirewallPolicyPropertiesFormat.ManagedRules)); err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("Error setting `managed_rules`: %+v", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we are removing managed rules from here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a good question, and the answer is above, as the lines were duplicated by mistake in my original contribution of managed_rules:
1b5a0b3#diff-25ef614a1fbe2de62ec91d10ddde72c778c5876a77dc676908b065a8268846c5R344-R349
So it should be safe 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤦♀️ - that they are and i'membarrassedd that i missed that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤦♀️ - that they are and i'membarrassedd that i missed that
Don't be! I bet you have a lot on your plate with all the things happening in this provider. Thanks for the review! 😊
|
This has been released in version 2.54.0 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 = "~> 2.54.0"
}
# ... other configuration ... |
|
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 👉 [email protected]. Thanks! |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Fixes #10859.
Not sure about the syntax in the acceptance test when referencing the path based rule IDs.