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

privateca: update certificate authority samples with more realistic values #12259

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 7, 2024

Conversation

hoexter
Copy link
Contributor

@hoexter hoexter commented Nov 6, 2024

Some of the properties configured here are either wrong or at least not very sensible on root certificates / subordinates.
A similar set of fixes got applied to terraform documentation samples in terraform-google-modules/terraform-docs-samples#631

What is left out here is placing the subordinate CA in it's own pool. I could not figure out what is required here to prepare the test infrastructure to provision another pool dedicated to the sub-ca. Technically those two certificates should not reside in the same pool.

…alues

Some of the properties configured here are either wrong or at least
not very sensible on root certificates / subordinates.

A similar set of fixes got applied to terraform documentation samples
in terraform-google-modules/terraform-docs-samples#631

Signed-off-by: Sven Hoexter <[email protected]>
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from melinath November 6, 2024 16:35
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 6, 2024

Hello! I am a robot. Tests will require approval from a repository maintainer to run.

@melinath, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to review your changes. If you have not received review feedback within 2 business days, please leave a comment on this PR asking them to take a look.

You can help make sure that review is quick by doing a self-review and by running impacted tests locally.

@modular-magician modular-magician added awaiting-approval Pull requests that need reviewer's approval to run presubmit tests and removed awaiting-approval Pull requests that need reviewer's approval to run presubmit tests labels Nov 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@melinath melinath left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Part of the reason these samples are structured in this way is to ensure that every field is covered in a create test - this is important to make sure the resources work as expected. Given the number of fields removed here, I'm guessing the coverage is no longer complete.

You can use exclude_docs on a complete (but impractical) example to have it be used only for test generation, and have the examples being used in docs be less complete.

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Diff report

Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

google provider: Diff ( 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-))
google-beta provider: Diff ( 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-))
Open in Cloud Shell: Diff ( 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-))

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Tests analytics

Total tests: 39
Passed tests: 31
Skipped tests: 7
Affected tests: 1

Click here to see the affected service packages
  • privateca

Action taken

Found 1 affected test(s) by replaying old test recordings. Starting RECORDING based on the most recent commit. Click here to see the affected tests
  • TestAccPrivatecaCertificateAuthority_privatecaCertificateAuthorityBasicExample

Get to know how VCR tests work

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

🟢 Tests passed during RECORDING mode:
TestAccPrivatecaCertificateAuthority_privatecaCertificateAuthorityBasicExample [Debug log]

🟢 No issues found for passed tests after REPLAYING rerun.


🟢 All tests passed!

View the build log or the debug log for each test

Copy link
Member

@melinath melinath left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Never mind, the fields are all still covered!

@gfxcc
Copy link
Contributor

gfxcc commented Nov 7, 2024

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants