Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add BlockingFunctionsConfig, AuthorizedDomains and QuotaConfig fields to identityplatform config #8064
Add BlockingFunctionsConfig, AuthorizedDomains and QuotaConfig fields to identityplatform config #8064
Changes from all commits
8bf778d
9d39b25
c878e1d
f6f01ef
f6ecf21
e42e09c
fd61722
18ffc06
5f3c9cd
32d2d57
ebde1f9
fe10482
f8ac631
a961578
c92229e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would it make sense for this to be a resource reference to https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/latest/docs/resources/cloudfunctions_function instead of a pure string?
In theory we could accommodate someone that uses Terraform for Auth but not Functions, but do we expect that to be a common use-case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would defer this to the reviewer to weigh in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Possibly, but there is currently some work being done with ResourceRef to get it working the way we want, and we are advising teams to avoid adding them for now. (see #8127)
Unrelated, but setting a
function_uri
within the map value seems like it should be required.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep. Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this also be output only?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Honest question because I'm not caught up on your exact use case: is this a user-friendly description?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was this addressed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ditto !ruby/object:Api::Type::Time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a string based on https://cloud.google.com/identity-platform/docs/reference/rest/v2/Config#TemporaryQuota
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Due to hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#13327, tests are currently disabled on this resource. In short, the initial apply (and later the destroy) that is done during tests will clear out other settings on the project.
I think there are two main directions you can go from here:
skip_test
locally, and run the test in your own environment to ensure things are working.identityplatform/Config.yaml
, which appears to use the same endpoint but without this bug. For testing, you could probably remove theskip_vcr: true
so that they run in the PR, otherwise you will need to run the test in your own environment.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure this was addressed either. It seems like you're choosing to keep the changes in this resource (cc @tylerg-dev who I see is a reviewer and also authored
identityplatform/Config.yaml
#6587).Either way, you will need to provide some sort of proof (ie. output) from running the acceptance tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't see why we'd have a duplicate at all? this one has more fields, but those should have just been merged into the initially added resource.
At this point do we have a way to combine them back together (and properly use field-masks to avoid the bug listed above)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, the second resources was added with #6679, and I believe it was created due to a miscommunication combined with unfortunate timing. Since users could be using the newer resource, we cannot simply remove or merge it, but we could choose to start down the deprecation process and remove it in the next major release.
Ideally, I think the fields on this resource should be moved to yours, and this resource removed.