Skip to content
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

consumption - remove 4.0 flag and fix tests #27511

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Oct 24, 2024

Conversation

teowa
Copy link
Contributor

@teowa teowa commented Sep 26, 2024

Community Note

  • Please vote on this PR by adding a 👍 reaction to the original PR to help the community and maintainers prioritize for review
  • Please do not leave comments along the lines of "+1", "me too" or "any updates", they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

remove 4.0 flag and fix tests

PR Checklist

  • I have followed the guidelines in our Contributing Documentation.
  • I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
  • I have checked if my changes close any open issues. If so please include appropriate closing keywords below.
  • I have updated/added Documentation as required written in a helpful and kind way to assist users that may be unfamiliar with the resource / data source.
  • I have used a meaningful PR title to help maintainers and other users understand this change and help prevent duplicate work.
    For example: “resource_name_here - description of change e.g. adding property new_property_name_here

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

  • I have added an explanation of what my changes do and why I'd like you to include them (This may be covered by linking to an issue above, but may benefit from additional explanation).
  • I have written new tests for my resource or datasource changes & updated any relevent documentation.
  • I have successfully run tests with my changes locally. If not, please provide details on testing challenges that prevented you running the tests.
  • (For changes that include a state migration only). I have manually tested the migration path between relevant versions of the provider.

Testing

  • My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass. (if this is not possible for any reason, please include details of why you did or could not add test coverage)

Need to run test

Change Log

Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.

  • consumption - remove 4.0 flag and fix tests

This is a (please select all that apply):

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature (ie adding a service, resource, or data source)
  • Enhancement
  • Breaking Change

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #0000

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

@rcskosir rcskosir added the bug label Oct 14, 2024
@katbyte
Copy link
Collaborator

katbyte commented Oct 17, 2024

@teowa - how come this is still in draft?

@teowa teowa marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2024 05:58
@teowa teowa requested review from katbyte and a team as code owners October 21, 2024 08:11
@teowa
Copy link
Contributor Author

teowa commented Oct 21, 2024

image

Copy link
Member

@stephybun stephybun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @teowa. Could you take a look at the comments?

@@ -153,13 +152,10 @@ func (br consumptionBudgetBaseResource) arguments(fields map[string]*pluginsdk.S
ValidateFunc: validation.IntBetween(0, 1000),
},
// Issue: https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/issues/16240
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like this comment should also be removed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

updated

Comment on lines 341 to 344
if resp, err := client.Delete(ctx, *id); err != nil {
if !response.WasNotFound(resp.HttpResponse) {
return fmt.Errorf("deleting %s: %+v", *id, err)
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't usually need to specifically check for a 404 when deleting. If the resource is disappearing before we're able to delete it then that would imply we're not marking this as gone in the read or something is going wrong before we're calling the delete.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually this is to fix the below TestAccConsumptionBudgetResourceGroup_disappears failure, the testcase tries to perform post-test destroy even the resource has been deleted and seems SDK will fire error if delete returns 404. There are many other _disappears testcase but it won't fail if API returns 204 for deleting an non-existing resource. Or should we remove the below testcase?

------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN   TestAccConsumptionBudgetResourceGroup_disappears
=== PAUSE TestAccConsumptionBudgetResourceGroup_disappears
=== CONT  TestAccConsumptionBudgetResourceGroup_disappears
    testcase.go:173: Error running post-test destroy, there may be dangling resources: exit status 1
        Error: deleting Scoped Budget (Scope: "/subscriptions/*******/resourceGroups/acctestRG-241023001722601091"
        Budget Name: "acctestconsumptionbudgetresourcegroup-241023001722601091"): unexpected status 404 (404 Not Found) with error: 404: No budget found matching budgetName: acctestconsumptionbudgetresourcegroup-241023001722601091, under storageScope: EntityType = Subscription, EntityId = *******, ChildScope = EntityType = ResourceGroup, EntityId = acctestRG-241023001722601091, ChildScope = , MetaData =  , MetaData =   (Request ID: 669a79c6-e268-4a25-bed9-78f2cc7d54ab)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These _disappears test cases are an old pattern that we don't really test for in the provider anymore. I believe @jackofallops has begun removing instances of these in the provider, so this test case should be removed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense!

Copy link
Member

@stephybun stephybun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @teowa! LGTM 💯

@stephybun stephybun merged commit c70167d into hashicorp:main Oct 24, 2024
34 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v4.7.0 milestone Oct 24, 2024
stephybun added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
Copy link

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 25, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants