Filter ec_deployments datasource by tags

[neiljbrookes]

Description

This PR attempts to allow filtering by "tags" when using the ec_deployments datasource.

For example:

data "ec_deployments" "example" {

  elasticsearch {
    healthy = "true"
  }

  tags = {
      "foo" = "bar"
  }
}

output "test" {
  value = data.ec_deployments.example.deployments
}

> terraform output test                 
tolist([
  {
    "apm_resource_id" = "ba049aec4b0249818af25c7ef7543ba9"
    "deployment_id" = "10974c2d7136235d8fe88be9545a8d22"
    "elasticsearch_resource_id" = "fbeaf8097f1342dbb4cf25aea4310796"
    "enterprise_search_resource_id" = "dab52337b8414f57a4b5f40fb9c7ffb3"
    "kibana_resource_id" = "6f7a0a51fa584ace8be97845c50d6525"
  },
])

.... where 10974c2d7136235d8fe88be9545a8d22 is tagged with { "foo" = "bar"} and is elasticsearch-healthy !

Related Issues

Closes #182

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

• Unit test Test_expandFilters extended to include "tags".
• Acceptance test TestAccDatasource_basic_tags extended to include ec_depoyments datasource filtering on tags.

> make unit
-> Running unit tests for terraform-provider-ec...
?       github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec        [no test files]
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec     0.800s  coverage: 71.4% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/acc 1.159s  coverage: 4.7% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentdatasource   1.068s  coverage: 89.6% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentsdatasource  1.039s  coverage: 78.3% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecdatasource/stackdatasource        0.721s  coverage: 72.9% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecresource/deploymentresource       1.292s  coverage: 85.6% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecresource/extensionresource        0.788s  coverage: 78.4% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecresource/trafficfilterassocresource       0.770s  coverage: 66.7% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/ecresource/trafficfilterresource    0.705s  coverage: 72.9% of statements
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/internal/util       0.485s  coverage: 79.1% of statements

> make testacc TEST_NAME=TestAccDatasource_basic_tags
-> Running terraform acceptance tests...
=== RUN   TestAccDatasource_basic_tags
=== PAUSE TestAccDatasource_basic_tags
=== CONT  TestAccDatasource_basic_tags
--- PASS: TestAccDatasource_basic_tags (313.49s)
PASS
ok      github.com/elastic/terraform-provider-ec/ec/acc 314.426s

Types of Changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Refactoring (improves code quality but has no user-facing effect)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation

Readiness Checklist

• My code follows the code style of this project
• My change requires a change to the documentation
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• All new and existing tests passed

[neiljbrookes]

@karencfv (or @marclop perhaps ?!)
I've created this draft PR to seek some help.

Unit test Test_expandFilters keeps failing on me with

--- FAIL: Test_expandFilters (0.01s)
    --- FAIL: Test_expandFilters/parses_the_data_source (0.00s)
        expanders_test.go:84: 
                Error Trace:    expanders_test.go:84
                Error:          Not equal: 
                                expected: &models.SearchRequest{From:0, Query:(*models.QueryContainer)(0xc0000ae840), Size:0, Sort:[]interface {}(nil)}
                                actual  : &models.SearchRequest{From:0, Query:(*models.QueryContainer)(0xc0000aeea0), Size:0, Sort:[]interface {}(nil)}
                            
                                Diff:
                Test:           Test_expandFilters/parses_the_data_source
FAIL

The test asserts that the two SearchRequest's should be equal, and fails as they are not. The diff, however, is empty !

Essentiually I have added "tags" to the test model and the SearchRequest is returned from expandResourceFilters. I've attempted to extend newTestQuery to match this, but it keep failing (but the diff is empty).

HALP !

FYI. I've built and tested the binary....and it seems to work.

[neiljbrookes]

@marclop I think that reflect.DeepEqual is doing something funny in the test.
I've committed ffd9afe which uses encoded JSON for the "is equal" assertion....and it works.

Bizarre.

[marclop]

@neiljbrookes I was trying this locally and I think it's due to the amount of nesting in these structures the assert.Equal isn't able to assert those properly, I'm OK +1 this PR, with the current approach since it's what we'll end up sending to the API.

I've modified your assertion so that it's easier to read should any errors occur on the test:

diff --git a/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentsdatasource/expanders_test.go b/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentsdatasource/expanders_test.go
index a3e8d98..3636f92 100644
--- a/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentsdatasource/expanders_test.go
+++ b/ec/ecdatasource/deploymentsdatasource/expanders_test.go
@@ -82,17 +82,17 @@ func Test_expandFilters(t *testing.T) {
 				assert.NoError(t, err)
 			}
 
-			jsonWant, err := json.Marshal(tt.want)
+			jsonWant, err := json.MarshalIndent(tt.want, "", "  ")
 			if err != nil {
 				t.Error("Unable to marshal wanted struct to JSON")
 			}
-			jsonGot, err := json.Marshal(got)
+
+			jsonGot, err := json.MarshalIndent(got, "", "  ")
 			if err != nil {
 				t.Error("Unable to marshal received struct to JSON")
 			}
 
-			assert.Equal(t, jsonWant, jsonGot)
-
+			assert.Equal(t, string(jsonWant), string(jsonGot))
 		})
 	}
 }

[neiljbrookes]

Thanks @marclop.
I incorporated your changes in 5745736.

[marclop]

oops I set the PR as ready for review. I think that was premature since the integration tests haven't been written yet.

[marclop]

LGTM

[marclop]

acceptance failures are unrelated to the changes.