Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
azurerm_eventhub_namespace_customer_managed_key - support for user_assigned_identity_id #23635
azurerm_eventhub_namespace_customer_managed_key - support for user_assigned_identity_id #23635
Changes from 26 commits
7e8dc72
038f8f9
e793543
1f75f99
64a2c5a
32dcc63
a7d1fbe
4463ffc
aefa032
d6832ae
3df4e1a
a8644d1
741cab4
791a6cc
e43ffe8
32a7bf3
1b03cfc
7186e6a
d0f6ce8
9bfe4ff
475d11f
c1b10be
99d5d51
d6022dd
b4c2f6e
72ca0af
1252b0a
259eb27
d979e2a
5a89a56
87e9ae7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we've got consistent Expand and Flatten functions we use across the Provider for this - we're using the Expand above, so can we update this to use the Flatten method here so that this behaviour is normalised across the provider?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So i dug into this a bit, and the reason I didn't use the existing Flatten method is because the data type that is returned for the
encryption.keyVaultProperties.identity
doesn't match the existingSystemOrUserAssignedList
type. The identity block declared in this resource was used since it already existed, but the Identity data that is returned is just the ID of the User Managed ID that is associated with the encryption, alongside the Key Vault details.We could do a one-off transform so it fits with
FlattenSystemAssignedOrUserAssignedList
, but it seems like then we accomplish the same thing with more cycles, and we still are left with a one-off transformation.Comparison of payloads:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In which case we're modelling this elsewhere in the provider as a single (string) field (
user_assigned_identity_id
) - so I think we should be able to take that approach here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So ditch the ID block and just go with a string?
I've got no issue with that, but I'll ask @katbyte to weigh in since she originally steered me towards the ID block.
I've got no preference, so either is fine with me.