Page rule additions #68
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…le-resolve_override add resolve_override page_rule action
…le-resolve_override add doc for resolve_override
…le-host_header_override add host_header_override page_rule action
…le-host_header_override missing bracket after merge conflict
…le-resolve_override fix typo and go fmt
…le-host_header_override go fmt
…le-bypass_cache_on_cookie Add page rule bypass cache on cookie
…le-disabled page_rules status is active or disabled not paused
…ule-waf add waf page rule
…ule-waf add doc for waf page rule keyword
Add `explicit_cache_control` (called "Origin Cache Control" in the UI).
We set `security_level` to `off` in some of our page rules, but this provider doesn't support that value. The underlying API does, however, so add it as a valid value.
| @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ Action blocks support the following: | |||
| * `host_header_override` - (Optional) The Host Header to override on the origin servers. | |||
| * `resolve_override` - (Optional) Override the origin server with this host. | |||
| * `rocket_loader` - (Optional) Whether to set the rocket loader to `"off"`, `"manual"`, or `"automatic"`. | |||
| * `security_level` - (Optional) Whether to set the security level to `"essentially_off"`, `"low"`, `"medium"`, `"high"`, or `"under_attack"`. | |||
| * `security_level` - (Optional) Whether to set the security level to `"off"`, `"essentially_off"`, `"low"`, `"medium"`, `"high"`, or `"under_attack"`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"off" is an enterprise only feature - do we need to make note of this somewhere? Or just rely on the API to return sane error messages if it isn't available?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's the responsibility of the provider to know or care about a customer's contract type with Cloudflare. The API should just To The Right Thing ™️ if a user without appropriate permissions tries to use it.
This is an enterprise-only feature, but as mentioned in this PR's comments, I don't think that's a concern of this provider.
Merged
|
Closing in favor of https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-cloudflare/pull/81, which is based on current |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR adds a new page rule action and adds a new value to an existing action.
It is based on unmerged upstream PR terraform-providers#61, so currently includes the changes from that PR as well.
explicit_cache_control actionoffvalue tosecurity_levelactionI've been using this code for the past couple of days and it's working as expected -- I can successfully enable the
explicit_cache_controlaction and setsecurity_leveltooffvia Terraform, and see the results reflected in the Page Rules UI.Note: I haven't written any tests because the existing test suite doesn't test each action and value. Happy to add tests that exercise the new functionality if you'd prefer.
Thanks for your consideration!
Ross