Add addons.samlp.issuer field to client resource

[xens]

🔧 Changes

This PR adds support for the issuer field within the samlp client addon. The issuer defaults to urn:your_tenant.auth0.com if not set explicitly. It can be set to something else including the proto part, for example; https://mydomain.com.

📚 References

• Auth0 management API clients

🔬 Testing

I've added the option to the existing testAccClientConfig test.

📝 Checklist

• All new/changed/fixed functionality is covered by tests (or N/A)
• I have added documentation for all new/changed functionality (or N/A)

[zonArt]

Thanks for the PR, it's working like a charm

[xens]

One test is failing and I'm not 100% sure why. The Terraform plan is failing because Terraform wants to change things which is normal in this case, is that something that must be manually applied by maintainers when a resource changes?

Also I'm a bit confused by the recordings folder and how it works exactly, I've added the expected config and output inside https://github.com/auth0/terraform-provider-auth0/pull/334/files#diff-c580a6ecc09747c0539023d5ab939abf42d4f33359936761380ae34eba9a24e6R84. Do I also need to edit the recordings folder or is it automagically generated ?

[sergiught]

Hey @xens 👋🏻 first of all thanks for the contribution! 🌟

So the tests make use of pre-recorded http interactions found in the recordings folder. To add new recordings or to simply recreate new ones when functionality is added you can:

• run the tests against an Auth0 tenant individually using the following additional env vars AUTH0_HTTP_RECORDINGS=on TF_ACC=true (for more: check https://github.com/auth0/terraform-provider-auth0/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#running-tests)
• manually add the additional fields or http interactions to the already created recording

The current test fails with:

resource_auth0_client_test.go:60: Step 1/2 error: Check failed: Check 19/24 error: auth0_client.my_client: Attribute 'addons.0.samlp.0.issuer' expected "https://example.com/", got ""

Because we haven't updated all the registered interactions for that test to include the issuer field.

Hope this helps, but if you still experience issues we can help out and adjust the recordings together after we finish tackling #14.

[xens]

thanks @sergiught for the detailed explanations! I've been able to run the tests locally and fix the required recordings. However the tests are still failing on the Terraform plan.

[sergiught]

Hey @xens 👋🏻 thanks for that! 👍🏻

I'll be able to help get this in the right place tomorrow, no worries about the conflicts either. If I can push to your branch I'll fix them as well.

[sergiught]

Hey @xens 👋🏻 , I set this branch to draft mode while we get this in the right place.

[sergiught]

Thanks a lot @xens for your contribution! Everything was looking great, I just helped out with rebasing and fixing conflicts. Please give it another look as well and let me know when you're done.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 86.80% // Head: 86.82% // Increases project coverage by +0.01% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (e2e500a) compared to base (ca8a3e0).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #334      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.80%   86.82%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        8476     8485       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         7358     7367       +9     
  Misses        858      858              
  Partials      260      260              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
internal/provider/resource_auth0_client.go	97.14% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
internal/provider/structure_auth0_client.go	81.43% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[xens]

@sergiught thanks for the review, lgtm! 🥳