Instantiate scheduled_actions if incident_urgency_rules with type = "use_support_hours"

[sarkis]

This fixes #97, instantiating scheduled actions if use_support_hours incident urgency type is set. It ensures that the pagerduty API calls will include an empty scheduled_actions in certain cases, explained better by the bug report in #97.

[sarkis]

Test added and ready for a review.

[sarkis]

Acceptance test results

$ make testacc TEST=./pagerduty/ TESTARGS='-run=TestAccPagerDutyService_*'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./pagerduty/ -v -run=TestAccPagerDutyService_* -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegration_import
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegration_import (10.12s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyService_import
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyService_import (8.02s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyServiceWithIncidentUrgency_import
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyServiceWithIncidentUrgency_import (8.11s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegration_Basic
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegration_Basic (21.28s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegrationGeneric_Basic
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyServiceIntegrationGeneric_Basic (15.47s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyService_Basic
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyService_Basic (15.14s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyService_BasicWithIncidentUrgencyRules
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyService_BasicWithIncidentUrgencyRules (15.18s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyService_FromBasicToCustomIncidentUrgencyRules
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyService_FromBasicToCustomIncidentUrgencyRules (12.47s)
=== RUN   TestAccPagerDutyService_SupportHoursChange
--- PASS: TestAccPagerDutyService_SupportHoursChange (11.59s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-pagerduty/pagerduty   117.485s

[sarkis]

@heimweh I was debating where this should be fixed (in this provider here or in the api call in https://github.com/heimweh/go-pagerduty). I think this is the better of the two solutions, but am open to move this out to go-pagerduty if you think that would be a better place for this.

[sarkis]

hi @heimweh anything else I should do here to have this PR ready to review?

[porkcharsui]

@sarkis Just tested out your branch, and it worked great, resolving the blocking bug I encountered (#97).

@heimweh Is there anything I can do to help expedite this landing to master?

[heimweh]

Hi @sarkis, sorry for the delay here. I've been away for a couple of days.

Thank you so much for this!

This LGTM 👍

[sarkis]

@heimweh no worries at all! I apologize for the spam... Thanks so much for this awesome provider. Hoping to help out with more open issues in the near future.

[sarkis]

@heimweh is there some set release cadence? I'm managing a couple of PRs in our terraform manifests that will require the change from this PR, so I wanted to check in to see when 1.3 may be released, before I set an expectation here.