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

Expose transitEncryptionMode attribute for google_redis_instance #4454

Closed

Conversation

trickyearlobe
Copy link
Contributor

As requested in inspec/inspec-gcp#305
Adding an Enum for transitEncryptionMode on google_redis_instance.

Impact on Terraform has not been tested... is it more appropriate
to do this in the inspec.yaml to avoid unexpected problems with
existing terraform plans?

Signed-off-by: Richard Nixon rnixon@chef.io

If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:

  • Searched through the issue tracker for an open issue that this either resolves or contributes to, commented on it to claim it, and written "fixes {url}" or "part of {url}" in this PR description. If there were no relevant open issues, I opened one and commented that I would like to work on it (not necessary for very small changes).
  • Generated Terraform, and ran make test and make lint to ensure it passes unit and linter tests.
  • Ensured that all new fields I added that can be set by a user appear in at least one example (for generated resources) or third_party test (for handwritten resources or update tests).
  • Ran relevant acceptance tests (If the acceptance tests do not yet pass or you are unable to run them, please let your reviewer know).
  • Read the Release Notes Guide before writing my release note below.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

As requested in https://github.com/inspec/inspec-gcp/issues/305
Adding an Enum for transitEncryptionMode on google_redis_instance.

As requested in inspec/inspec-gcp#305
Adding an Enum for transitEncryptionMode on google_redis_instance.

Impact on Terraform has not been tested... is it more appropriate
to do this in the inspec.yaml to avoid unexpected problems with
existing terraform plans?

Signed-off-by: Richard Nixon <rnixon@chef.io>
@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: yes label Feb 2, 2021
@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello! I am a robot who works on Magic Modules PRs.

I have detected that you are a community contributor, so your PR will be assigned to someone with a commit-bit on this repo for initial review.

Thanks for your contribution! A human will be with you soon.

@rileykarson, please review this PR or find an appropriate assignee.

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Diff report:

Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+))
Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+))
Ansible: Diff ( 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+))
TF Conversion: Diff ( 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+))
Inspec: Diff ( 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+))

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Oops! It looks like you're using an unknown release-note type in your changelog entries:

  • REPLACEME

Please only use the types listed in https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules/blob/master/.ci/RELEASE_NOTES_GUIDE.md.

@rileykarson
Copy link
Member

rileykarson commented Feb 2, 2021

This duplicates #4444, let's use that one instead. There's some nuance to the conditions under which the field can be updated that is a WIP for that PR.

@rileykarson rileykarson closed this Feb 2, 2021
@trickyearlobe
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cheers

@trickyearlobe trickyearlobe deleted the inspec-gcp-305 branch February 3, 2021 13:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants