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

Update azurerm_eventhub_namespace with optional dedicated_cluster_id #7548

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 6, 2020
Merged

Update azurerm_eventhub_namespace with optional dedicated_cluster_id #7548

merged 7 commits into from
Jul 6, 2020

Conversation

favoretti
Copy link
Collaborator

@favoretti favoretti commented Jul 1, 2020

Update azurerm_eventhub_namespace with optional dedicated_cluster_id property.

@favoretti
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@tombuildsstuff @jackofallops here we go again :)
I would really appreciate a couple of pointers on how you want me to implement validation for limits in azurerm_eventhub depending on a property of azurerm_eventhub_namespace.

@ghost ghost added the documentation label Jul 1, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hey @favoretti

Thanks for splitting this back out :)

I've taken a look through and left some comments inline, but this is mostly looking good so far. To reply to your question:

I would really appreciate a couple of pointers on how you want me to implement validation for limits in azurerm_eventhub depending on a property of azurerm_eventhub_namespace.

In this instance since these fields can both be set, albeit to different maximum values - unfortunately we don't support conditional validation yet so we'll be best to increase the maximum value of the validation to the maximum (e.g. where Dedicated is higher) and then add a yellow "information" box (~> **Note:** Lorem Ipsum..) to call that out in the documentation; potentially making a check inside the Create/Update function to check that those are within the expected bounds when not using a a Dedicated Cluster. Hopefully that makes sense?

Thanks!

website/docs/r/eventhub_namespace.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/d/eventhub_namespace.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@favoretti favoretti marked this pull request as ready for review July 1, 2020 17:24
@favoretti favoretti requested a review from tombuildsstuff July 1, 2020 17:33
Copy link
Contributor

@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - thanks for pushing those changes @favoretti

@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff merged commit 33b2bbc into hashicorp:master Jul 6, 2020
@tombuildsstuff tombuildsstuff added this to the v2.18.0 milestone Jul 6, 2020
tombuildsstuff added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2020
tombuildsstuff added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2020
@favoretti favoretti deleted the eventhub_namespace_cluster_id branch July 7, 2020 22:47
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 10, 2020

This has been released in version 2.18.0 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 = "~> 2.18.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 5, 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 Aug 5, 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