Add resource_logging_billing_account_sink resource #457
Conversation
| Read: resourceLoggingBillingAccountSinkRead, | ||
| Delete: resourceLoggingBillingAccountSinkDelete, | ||
| Update: resourceLoggingBillingAccountSinkUpdate, | ||
| Schema: resourceLoggingSinkSchema(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Import support? You have all the context you need fresh in your mind. Since this PR is long, I think it is a good idea to do it in a separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed! I actually started adding that but stopped as it got pretty complicated. My approach was modeled on yours
|
|
||
| * `name` - (Required) The name of the logging sink. | ||
|
|
||
| * 'billing_account' - (Required) The billing account exported to the sink. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
use the same quote style: `` not '
google/resource_logging_sink.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func expandResourceloggingSinkForUpdate(d *schema.ResourceData) *logging.LogSink { | ||
| // Can only update destination/filter right now. Despite the method below using 'Patch', the API requires both |
* Add resource_logging_billing_account_sink resource * Fix bad style
* Add resource_logging_billing_account_sink resource * Fix bad style
|
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
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
This adds support for
resource_logging_billing_account_sink; the API looks identical to the one used for project-level sinks, so I opted to do some refactoring here to establish a common schema (there is also organizations and folder-level sinks coming soon).