Feature/aws cognito resource server #4530

tomjanne · 2018-05-14T06:03:34Z

ldenman · 2018-05-16T18:57:23Z

bflad · 2018-05-18T01:49:09Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server_test.go

+					testAccCheckAWSCognitoResourceServerExists("aws_cognito_resource_server.main"),
+					resource.TestCheckResourceAttr("aws_cognito_resource_server.main", "identifier", identifier),
+					resource.TestCheckResourceAttr("aws_cognito_resource_server.main", "name", name),
+					resource.TestCheckResourceAttrSet("aws_cognito_resource_server.main", "scope_identifiers"),


This is currently failing:

=== RUN TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_full --- FAIL: TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_full (5.86s) testing.go:518: Step 0 error: Check failed: 1 error(s) occurred: * Check 4/5 error: aws_cognito_resource_server.main: Attribute 'scope_identifiers' expected to be set

Did you mean to do this?

resource.TestCheckResourceAttr("aws_cognito_resource_server.main", "scope.#", "2"),

bflad

Thanks for submitting this @tomjanne! It was in pretty good shape and I left some feedback below, which I will implement so we can get this merged and released today 👍

bflad · 2018-05-31T01:57:33Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+			"name": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeString,
+				Required: true,
+				ForceNew: true,


It appears that name should allow updates. I'll confirm with acceptance testing and remove ForceNew: true if that is the case.

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:01:51Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+		Delete: resourceAwsCognitoResourceServerDelete,
+
+		Importer: &schema.ResourceImporter{
+			State: schema.ImportStatePassthrough,


The current resource ID (only Identifier) does not have enough information to work with the passthrough importer. We also need the user pool ID so the read function can work directly from the ID.

In this case, we should probably prepend the user pool ID to the resource ID, e.g.

# Choosing pipe delimiter here as the identifier might be a URL d.SetId(fmt.Sprintf("%s|%s", userPoolID, identifier))

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:04:15Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+		return err
+	}
+
+	d.SetId(*resp.ResourceServer.Identifier)


We should not call d.SetId() in read functions 👍

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:06:23Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+	}
+
+	d.SetId(*resp.ResourceServer.Identifier)
+	d.Set("name", *resp.ResourceServer.Name)


To prevent panics, we should ensure that resp and resp.ResourceServer are not nil before trying to dereference them.

Also d.Set() is able to handle nil values directly, so we should prefer to not dereference values to prevent potential panics.

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:14:26Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+
+	log.Printf("[DEBUG] Updating Cognito Resource Server: %s", params)
+
+	_, err := conn.UpdateResourceServer(params)


Scopes can be updated but its not being added to the update parameters, so currently they would generate a perpetual difference.

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:22:17Z

aws/validators.go

@@ -1386,6 +1386,33 @@ func validateCognitoUserPoolClientURL(v interface{}, k string) (ws []string, es
 	return
 }

+func validateCognitoResourceServerScopeDescription(v interface{}, k string) (ws []string, errors []error) {


This can be replaced with validation.StringLenBetween(1, 256): https://godoc.org/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/helper/validation#StringLenBetween

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:23:45Z

aws/validators.go

+		errors = append(errors, fmt.Errorf("%q cannot be longer than 256 character", k))
+	}
+	if !regexp.MustCompile(`[\x21\x23-\x2E\x30-\x5B\x5D-\x7E]+`).MatchString(value) {
+		errors = append(errors, fmt.Errorf("%q must satisfy regular expression pattern: [\\x21\\x23-\\x2E\\x30-\\x5B\\x5D-\\x7E]+", k))


Minor nitpick: We generally prefer to return friendlier validation errors to operators (e.g. should only contain letters, numbers, ...)

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:30:43Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+		scopeIdentifier := elem["scope_identifier"].(string)
+		scopeIdentifiers = append(scopeIdentifiers, scopeIdentifier)
+	}
+	d.Set("scope_identifiers", scopeIdentifiers)


Since this attribute is a non-scalar type, we should perform d.Set() error checking similar to scopes above.

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:31:15Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+	resp, err := conn.CreateResourceServer(params)
+
+	if err != nil {
+		return errwrap.Wrapf("Error creating Cognito Resource Server: {{err}}", err)


Minor nitpick: We do not need to use errwrap.Wrapf() when simply returning a single error back to the operator -- fmt.Errorf() is preferred

bflad · 2018-05-31T02:33:40Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_resource_server.go

+							Required:     true,
+							ValidateFunc: validateCognitoResourceServerScopeName,
+						},
+						"scope_identifier": {


This attribute is a little awkward as its not defined by the API and is seemingly only used to build the computed scope_identifiers attribute below. Instead of creating this intermediate attribute, let's just directly create scope_identifiers from the scopes returned by the API to remove any confusion. 👍

bflad · 2018-05-31T03:18:44Z

After addressing the above feedback and ensuring that updates properly worked for names and scopes (previously all scopes were always removed during update as they were not included in the update call), everything is green.

make testacc TEST=./aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -run=TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_basic (24.04s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_scope
--- PASS: TestAccAWSCognitoResourceServer_scope (42.89s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws	66.971s

bflad · 2018-05-31T04:03:20Z

This has been released in version 1.21.0 of the AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

tomjanne · 2018-06-01T05:16:58Z

Thanks for the feedback and the help to get this done.

ghost · 2020-04-05T17:41:27Z

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. Thanks!

tomjanne added 3 commits April 26, 2018 10:42

first version of AWS Cognito Resource Server

ed5fe12

add ACC tests. documentation

92e4965

fix tests

71a8b99

ghost added the size/L Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. label May 14, 2018

bflad added new-resource Introduces a new resource. service/cognito labels May 14, 2018

bflad reviewed May 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

bflad reviewed May 31, 2018

View reviewed changes

bflad added this to the v1.21.0 milestone May 31, 2018

bflad merged commit 71a8b99 into hashicorp:master May 31, 2018

bflad added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2018

resource/aws_cognito_resource_server: Address PR #4530 feedback

1ab680f

bflad added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2018

Update CHANGELOG for #4530

c27b693

ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 5, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Feature/aws cognito resource server #4530

Feature/aws cognito resource server #4530

tomjanne commented May 14, 2018

ldenman commented May 16, 2018

bflad May 18, 2018

bflad left a comment

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad May 31, 2018

bflad commented May 31, 2018

bflad commented May 31, 2018

tomjanne commented Jun 1, 2018

ghost commented Apr 5, 2020


		log.Printf("[DEBUG] Updating Cognito Resource Server: %s", params)

		_, err := conn.UpdateResourceServer(params)

Feature/aws cognito resource server #4530

Feature/aws cognito resource server #4530

Conversation

tomjanne commented May 14, 2018

ldenman commented May 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bflad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bflad commented May 31, 2018

bflad commented May 31, 2018

tomjanne commented Jun 1, 2018

ghost commented Apr 5, 2020