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_api_management_identity_provider_google #5279

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 2, 2020
Merged

New Resource: azurerm_api_management_identity_provider_google #5279

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 2, 2020

Conversation

aqche
Copy link
Contributor

@aqche aqche commented Dec 31, 2019

Partially addresses: #5044

Adds the azurerm_api_management_identity_provider_google resource.

--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMApiManagementIdentityProviderGoogle_basic (1801.15s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMApiManagementIdentityProviderGoogle_update (1862.55s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/internal/services/apimanagement/tests 1862.64

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 for this new resource @aqche, this LGTM aside from two minor comments i've left inline.

ValidateFunc: validate.NoEmptyStrings,
},

"client_secret": {
Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte Dec 31, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we change this to match what google calls this:

Suggested change
"client_secret": {
"api_key": {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe both Azure and Google actually refer to the value as client secret. I'll update the documentation to reflect this.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you look at the SDK docs (and presumably the API) it states:

// ClientSecret - Client secret of the Application in external Identity Provider, used to authenticate login request. For example, it is App Secret for Facebook login, API Key for Google login, Public Key for Microsoft.

Is this inaccurate and client secret is what you would look for on the google side?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, it is called client secret as well on the Google side.

google

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

perfect, thanks for that!

"client_id": {
Type: schema.TypeString,
Required: true,
ValidateFunc: validate.NoEmptyStrings,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a validation we could do on this value?

@aqche
Copy link
Contributor Author

aqche commented Jan 1, 2020

@katbyte thanks for the review! made updates to the PR based on your comments. let me know what you think

@ghost ghost removed the waiting-response label Jan 1, 2020
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 @aqche! LGTM now 👍

@katbyte katbyte merged commit 8b798af into hashicorp:master Jan 2, 2020
katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2020
@aqche aqche deleted the resource_azurerm_api_management_identity_provider_google branch January 2, 2020 03:15
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 8, 2020

This has been released in version 1.40.0 of the provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. As an example:

provider "azurerm" {
    version = "~> 1.40.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 29, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 29, 2020
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.

2 participants