22 new data source security account #114
Conversation
…e-security_account
carchi8py
requested review from
chuyich,
suhasbshekar and
wenjun666
as code owners
| "github.com/netapp/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/internal/utils" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These lines can be removed.
| MarkdownDescription: "SecurityAccount id", | ||
| Computed: true, | ||
| }, | ||
| "owner": schema.SingleNestedAttribute{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'owner' should be required in one data source case, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NO.... YES.....
So an account can be SVM specific or cluster specific.
Let me try some test out, my worry here is cluster name might not be known by the user.
| "github.com/netapp/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/internal/utils" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these lines can be removed
|
|
||
| Required: | ||
|
|
||
| - `name` (String) SecurityAccount owner name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the user only provides "name", then it will be multiple records.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think there a way around that.
Since cluster user can't give an owner info we can't have it required. |
scripts/acctest.sh
Outdated
| #export TF_ACC_NETAPP_USER="admin" | ||
| #export TF_ACC_NETAPP_PASS="<password>" | ||
| #export TF_ACC_NETAPP_LICENSE="<licensekey>" | ||
| export TF_ACC_NETAPP_HOST="10.193.180.108" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it ok that we hard-coded these values?
|
Please resolve the conflict, then it should be good to go. |
…_account 22 new data source security account
Adds #22