Change of Library

[mlclmj]

Hi!

Now that the library has been transferred to nytm/go-grafana-api and has been brought up to speed with the previously used repo, I have the following updates for the provider to finish this transition:

• Update the location of the go-grafana-api library from github.com/teemupo/go-grafana-api to github.com/nytm/go-grafana-api in the provider and resource files
• Update vendor.json file and update vendor dependencies to reflect library change

Closes #26

[pearkes]

@mlclmj do you plan on re-opening this? Was on my list to run acceptance tests and get it merged per the plan in #26. Let me know if you want to take a different route!

[mlclmj]

Hey @pearkes!
I was just about to comment in #26 -- I closed this temporarily as we just came across https://github.com/grafana-tools/sdk, and we're thinking it may be a better alternative to maintaining an entirely separate client as it has more functionality and is semi-official. Any thoughts on which one you think would be a better option? I can most certainly reopen this PR if you'd prefer this route, I just wanted to hold off merging it until a course of action is decided on. Let me know your thoughts!

[pearkes]

@mlclmj without looking to closely it looks like they're still working on building it out based on the status. I'd imagine it might take some work to move to.

It doesn't look like an extremely active library and without full coverage I'd be concerned it could impede work that people may want to do to this provider. If you maintain the SDK and have an ear to this community you may be in a position to support the provider better than the official SDK, though that is a little unintuitive. 😄

So I'd say given the information at hand we that this PR is the right approach for now. But I'm easy either way!

[mlclmj]

Hey @pearkes, sorry for the delay getting back to you on this- I'm in agreement with you here, I think the library we now maintain would be the best option. We tried to rouse the folk maintaining the SDK to see whether it'd be a viable possibility so that there aren't two being clients developed in parallel, however we have yet to have any luck and I agree that it'd likely block continued work on this provider.

I'm reopening this PR so that we can get this change finalized and continue development, thanks again for your help with this!

[tonglil]

Hey @pearkes, we're looking to roll the use of the new features @mlclmj worked on into our CI pipeline and it would be great if we don't have to build the binary :)

Any chance for a review?

[pearkes]

Tests and vendor changes look good to me! Merging this.

[pearkes]

@tonglil @mlclmj are you two interested in getting commit access to this repo? Would be great to get your help maintaining and improving it. I'd happily facilitate that. See some background here: https://www.terraform.io/docs/extend/community/contributing.html.

If so feel free to drop me an email: jack@hashicorp.com