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

New Resource: azurerm_data_protection_backup_policy_mysql_flexible_server #26955

Merged

Conversation

neil-yechenwei
Copy link
Contributor

@neil-yechenwei neil-yechenwei commented Aug 7, 2024

Community Note

  • Please vote on this PR by adding a 👍 reaction to the original PR to help the community and maintainers prioritize for review
  • Please do not leave comments along the lines of "+1", "me too" or "any updates", they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

This PR is to support Data Protection Backup Policy for MySQL FS.

API Reference: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/tree/main/specification/dataprotection/resource-manager/Microsoft.DataProtection/stable/2024-04-01

Overview: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/postgresql/flexible-server/concepts-backup-restore#long-term-retention-preview

Note: This PR is referring the existing Backup Instances/Backup Policies in RP https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/tree/main/internal/services/dataprotection.

PR Checklist

  • I have followed the guidelines in our Contributing Documentation.
  • I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
  • I have checked if my changes close any open issues. If so please include appropriate closing keywords below.
  • I have updated/added Documentation as required written in a helpful and kind way to assist users that may be unfamiliar with the resource / data source.
  • I have used a meaningful PR title to help maintainers and other users understand this change and help prevent duplicate work.
    For example: “resource_name_here - description of change e.g. adding property new_property_name_here

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

  • I have added an explanation of what my changes do and why I'd like you to include them (This may be covered by linking to an issue above, but may benefit from additional explanation).
  • I have written new tests for my resource or datasource changes & updated any relevent documentation.
  • I have successfully run tests with my changes locally. If not, please provide details on testing challenges that prevented you running the tests.
  • (For changes that include a state migration only). I have manually tested the migration path between relevant versions of the provider.

Testing

  • My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass. (if this is not possible for any reason, please include details of why you did or could not add test coverage)
--- PASS: TestAccDataProtectionBackupPolicyMySQLFlexibleServer_basic (282.39s)
--- PASS: TestAccDataProtectionBackupPolicyMySQLFlexibleServer_requiresImport (268.95s)
--- PASS: TestAccDataProtectionBackupPolicyMySQLFlexibleServer_complete (217.73s)

Change Log

Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.

  • New Resource: azurerm_data_protection_backup_policy_mysql_flexible_server

This is a (please select all that apply):

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature (ie adding a service, resource, or data source)
  • Enhancement
  • Breaking Change

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

Copy link
Contributor

@ms-zhenhua ms-zhenhua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @neil-yechenwei ,

Thanks for this PR - I've taken a look through and left some comments inline. If we can fix those up, this should be good to go 👍

@neil-yechenwei
Copy link
Contributor Author

neil-yechenwei commented Aug 8, 2024

@ms-zhenhua , thanks for the comments. I updated PR and left suggestions. Please take another look. Below is the latest test result I just now triggered.

image

@ms-zhenhua
Copy link
Contributor

@neil-yechenwei, thank you for the update. LGTM~

@neil-yechenwei neil-yechenwei marked this pull request as ready for review August 9, 2024 02:59
Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
Optional: true,
ForceNew: true,
ValidateFunc: validation.StringIsNotEmpty,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we validate this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The validation is added per the existing validation.

MinItems: 1,
Elem: &pluginsdk.Schema{
Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
ValidateFunc: validation.StringIsNotEmpty,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be validated as an ISO duration?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not a standard ISO duration. This is the sample "R/2021-05-23T02:30:00+00:00/P1W". All existing TF resources defined the "backup_repeating_time_intervals" property aren't added validation.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the documentation says ISO 8601 repeating time format - that is a variation of the standard duration format no?

please create a validation function like ISO8601Duration and add it to the helpers/time.go function and make use of it here/add to the other data protection resources

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The validation is added.

@neil-yechenwei
Copy link
Contributor Author

neil-yechenwei commented Sep 13, 2024

@katbyte , thanks for the comments. I updated PR. Please take another look. Thanks.

Below is the latest test result just now triggered.
image

MinItems: 1,
Elem: &pluginsdk.Schema{
Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,
ValidateFunc: validation.StringIsNotEmpty,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the documentation says ISO 8601 repeating time format - that is a variation of the standard duration format no?

please create a validation function like ISO8601Duration and add it to the helpers/time.go function and make use of it here/add to the other data protection resources

@neil-yechenwei
Copy link
Contributor Author

@katbyte , thanks for the comments. I updated PR. Please take another look.

Below is the test result I just now triggered.
image

Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @neil-yechenwei - LGTM 🏰

@katbyte katbyte merged commit 596a61e into hashicorp:main Sep 20, 2024
34 checks passed
katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v4.3.0 milestone Sep 20, 2024
Copy link

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants