Add roles resource and permissions datasource #753
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Jiri Kuncar <[email protected]>
| url: https://api.datadoghq.com/api/v2/permissions | ||
| method: GET | ||
| response: | ||
| body: '{"data":[{"type":"permissions","id":"984a2bd4-d3b4-11e8-a1ff-a7f660d43029","attributes":{"name":"admin","display_name":"Privileged |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what happens when we add new permissions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't test for the exact set of returned permissions, so this well still pass as new permissions are added
| State: resourceDatadogRoleImport, | ||
| }, | ||
| CustomizeDiff: customdiff.ValidateValue("permission", validatePermissionsUnrestricted), | ||
| Schema: map[string]*schema.Schema{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ID's are specific in terraform. They are not in the schema, but they are set in the state (look for SetId()) and user can reference it in other resources with resource_name.id
| @@ -100,6 +103,12 @@ type ProviderConfiguration struct { | |||
| DatadogClientV2 *datadogV2.APIClient | |||
| AuthV1 context.Context | |||
| AuthV2 context.Context | |||
|
|
|||
| now func() time.Time | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not directly?
| now func() time.Time | |
| Now func() time.Time |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't even think of that haha. Guess it felt more "go" the other way, but yeah, I guess this works too
|
|
||
| Schema: map[string]*schema.Schema{ | ||
| // Computed values | ||
| "permissions": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think we'd want to add additional fields to this later? I'm wondering if it'd be useful to use schema like:
permissions: [
{
"name": <name>
"id": <id>
}
]
but that may be a bit of overkill here, wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, I don't know. And I do need this mapping so that it's practical for user to reference in other resources. A list wouldn't allow that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah you're right, we don't want users to have to care about the order of the list...
I just want to make sure will be able to add new fields in the future without compatibility issues if needed. (But maybe we won't need it) Another possibility may be this, though I'm unsure if that means you'd need to know the hash
{
"name": {
"id": <id>,
"future_fields": ....,
}
}
]```
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So in a map I can only have primitive types though
Elem represents the element type. For a TypeMap, it must be a *Schema with a Type that is one of the primitives: TypeString, TypeBool, TypeInt, or TypeFloat
| @@ -509,7 +508,7 @@ func resourceDatadogMonitorRead(d *schema.ResourceData, meta interface{}) error | |||
|
|
|||
| // Ignore any timestamps in the past that aren't -1 or 0 | |||
| for k, v := range configSilenced { | |||
| if v.(int) < int(time.Now().Unix()) && v.(int) != 0 && v.(int) != -1 { | |||
| if v.(int) < int(providerConf.Now().Unix()) && v.(int) != 0 && v.(int) != -1 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I fully understand what this change addresses?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
problem in replaying tests, since we do a match on the body now. So we need to be able to set the frozen clock in the test, this allows us to do that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh ok, so no functional user difference, just for tests 👍
| Required: true, | ||
| Description: "ID of the permission to assign.", | ||
| }, | ||
| "name": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this mostly here for the ability to reference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. I'm not sure about this one though. At first I had a simple string list of IDs, then I had to add it for my first try at implanting diffSupressFunc that i didn't end up doing, but kept this as is 🤷
| // Get a list of all permissions, to ignore restricted perms | ||
| if validPermissions == nil { |
No description provided.