`azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion` - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

ziyeqf · 2024-10-15T08:04:41Z

The only one fusion alert rule is enabled by default ( source ), so removing the existing check and update the document.

In my opinion we can deprecate the name and template_alert_rule_guid and remove them in v5.0, however this will be a breaking change, and the resource also needs to be refactored to typed sdk, to make the resource able to be used, I just removed the existing check in this PR.

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

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)

❯❯ tftest sentinel TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic (265.21s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting (310.56s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable (416.85s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/internal/services/sentinel	416.940s

Change Log

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

azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion - remove existing check for built in rule [azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion - remove existing check for built in rule #27653]

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)

Note

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

…t rule

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

katbyte · 2024-10-24T17:47:27Z

website/docs/r/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion.html.markdown

@@ -50,6 +41,7 @@ resource "azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion" "example" {
 The following arguments are supported:

 * `name` - (Required) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created.


Can name ONLY be BuiltInFusion? if so could we please add that as a default, make the property optional, and deprecate it.

or can additional rules be added? or the existing ones name renamed?

I'm not sure about the already existing rules with different names, for new created ones, it can only be BuiltInFusion

ziyeqf · 2024-10-30T09:30:40Z

just triggered another testing, maybe we can wait for it.

stephybun · 2024-10-30T09:35:32Z

website/docs/r/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion.html.markdown

+* `name` - (Optional) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created.
+**Note:** The `name` is deprecated and will be removed in v5.0 version of the provider. The Fusion Alert Rule is enabled by default with the name `BuiltInFusion`, more details could be found [here](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/configure-fusion-rules#configure-scheduled-analytics-rules-for-fusion-detections).


This doesn't follow our guidelines for breaking changes.

Please also make sure the upgrade guide is updated with this change.

sure, sorry for missed that part.

ziyeqf · 2024-10-30T09:46:23Z

updated testing result

❯❯ tftest sentinel TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic (488.65s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting (553.41s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable (901.94s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/internal/services/sentinel	902.014s

stephybun · 2024-10-30T10:01:03Z

website/docs/r/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion.html.markdown

+* `name` - (Optional) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created. Defaults to `BuiltInFusion`
+


We shouldn't advertise or encourage the use of deprecated properties which is why we remove them from the documentation entirely.

Suggested change

* `name` - (Optional) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created. Defaults to `BuiltInFusion`

ziyeqf · 2024-11-06T07:04:37Z

kindly bubble this PR up

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:22:17Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+	if _, err := client.CreateOrUpdate(ctx, id, params); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("creating Sentinel Alert Rule Fusion %q: %+v", id, err)
+	}


The string formatter for the IDs contain detailed information about the resource's name, we would be unnecessarily repeating ourselves by adding that in the error message.

Suggested change

if _, err := client.CreateOrUpdate(ctx, id, params); err != nil {

return fmt.Errorf("creating Sentinel Alert Rule Fusion %q: %+v", id, err)

}

if _, err := client.CreateOrUpdate(ctx, id, params); err != nil {

return fmt.Errorf("creating %s: %+v", id, err)

}

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:22:33Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+
+	resp, err := client.Get(ctx, *id)
+	if err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %q: %+v", id, err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %q: %+v", id, err)

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: %+v", id, err)

Hasn't been updated

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:23:00Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

-				ForceNew:     true,
-				ValidateFunc: validation.StringIsNotEmpty,
-			},
+		Schema: resourceSentinelAlertRuleFusionSchema(),


Please keep the schema in-lined here

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:23:32Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+	}
+
+	if err = assertAlertRuleKind(resp.Model, alertrules.AlertRuleKindFusion); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("asserting alert rule of %q: %+v", id, err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("asserting alert rule of %q: %+v", id, err)

return fmt.Errorf("asserting alert rule of %s: %+v", id, err)

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:39:39Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+	payload := resp.Model.(alertrules.FusionAlertRule)
+


This doesn't follow the pattern that we expect for the update function which

nil check Model

nil check Properties

Patch changes in to Properties/Model

This particular case will deviate slightly since this is a discriminated type and it's generally good practice to check that the type assertion we're doing is successful and throwing an error if it isnt. Can you please update this to

Suggested change

payload := resp.Model.(alertrules.FusionAlertRule)

if resp.Model == nil {

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: `model` was nil", id)

}

payload, ok := resp.Model.(alertrules.FusionAlertRule)

if !ok {

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: expected an alert rule of type `Fusion`, got %q", pointer.From(resp.Model.AlertRule().Type))

}

if payload.Properties == nil {

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: `properties` was nil", id)

}

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:40:22Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+		if payload.Properties == nil {
+			payload.Properties = &alertrules.FusionAlertRuleProperties{}
 		}


Same here

Suggested change

if payload.Properties == nil {

payload.Properties = &alertrules.FusionAlertRuleProperties{}

}

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:40:31Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+		if payload.Properties == nil {
+			payload.Properties = &alertrules.FusionAlertRuleProperties{}
 		}


Same here

Suggested change

if payload.Properties == nil {

payload.Properties = &alertrules.FusionAlertRuleProperties{}

}

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:40:58Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+	if payload.Properties != nil {
+		payload.Properties.Description = nil
+		payload.Properties.DisplayName = nil
+		payload.Properties.LastModifiedUtc = nil
+		payload.Properties.Severity = nil
+		payload.Properties.Tactics = nil
 	}


We don't need to nil check this anymore since we're doing it further up

Suggested change

if payload.Properties != nil {

payload.Properties.Description = nil

payload.Properties.DisplayName = nil

payload.Properties.LastModifiedUtc = nil

payload.Properties.Severity = nil

payload.Properties.Tactics = nil

}

payload.Properties.Description = nil

payload.Properties.DisplayName = nil

payload.Properties.LastModifiedUtc = nil

payload.Properties.Severity = nil

payload.Properties.Tactics = nil

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:41:10Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

 	}

-	d.SetId(id.ID())
+	if _, err := client.CreateOrUpdate(ctx, *id, payload); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("creating Sentinel Alert Rule Fusion %q: %+v", id, err)


Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("creating Sentinel Alert Rule Fusion %q: %+v", id, err)

return fmt.Errorf("updating %s: %+v", id, err)

stephybun · 2024-11-06T08:42:36Z

website/docs/5.0-upgrade-guide.html.markdown

+
+### `azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion`
+
+* The deprecated `name` property has been removed.


This has been put inside the ```markdown box where we've put examples of how the breaking changes should be documented, this should be moved down out of this block

stephybun

@ziyeqf can you please provide testing evidence in 5.0 mode as well

ziyeqf · 2024-11-07T00:45:49Z

4.0 test result

❯❯ tftest sentinel TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic (227.66s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting (263.98s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable (412.58s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/internal/services/sentinel	412.666s

5.0

❯❯ ARM_FIVEPOINTZERO_BETA=true tftest sentinel TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
=== RUN   TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== PAUSE TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting
=== CONT  TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_basic (433.09s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_sourceSetting (508.14s)
--- PASS: TestAccSentinelAlertRuleFusion_disable (828.12s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/internal/services/sentinel	828.202s

stephybun · 2024-11-07T15:14:28Z

website/docs/5.0-upgrade-guide.html.markdown

+### `azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion`
+
+* The deprecated `name` property has been removed.
+


As specified in point 4 for breaking schema changes these should be listed in alphabetical order, so should be put before all the storage changes above

stephybun · 2024-11-07T15:14:38Z

internal/services/sentinel/sentinel_alert_rule_fusion_resource.go

+
+	resp, err := client.Get(ctx, *id)
+	if err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %q: %+v", id, err)


Hasn't been updated

stephybun

Thanks @ziyeqf LGTM 🦖

azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion - remove existing check for buil…

d9e9c86

…t rule

github-actions bot added documentation service/sentinel size/M labels Oct 15, 2024

ziyeqf marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2024 10:28

rcskosir added the bug label Oct 15, 2024

katbyte requested changes Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Oct 24, 2024

ziyeqf added 3 commits October 30, 2024 13:51

divide create and update function

641368b

update workaround

85ddb07

update per comment

839806c

ziyeqf requested a review from a team as a code owner October 30, 2024 08:40

github-actions bot added size/L and removed waiting-response size/M labels Oct 30, 2024

deprecate name

65b3acd

github-actions bot added size/XL and removed size/L labels Oct 30, 2024

stephybun requested changes Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Oct 30, 2024

update documents

2ae0751

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Oct 30, 2024

stephybun reviewed Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Oct 30, 2024

remove name from document

ce625b7

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Oct 31, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into sentinel_fusion_exisiting

9db00e1

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Oct 31, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into sentinel_fusion_exisiting

7562f00

stephybun requested changes Nov 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Nov 6, 2024

stephybun reviewed Nov 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

update per comments

11fe128

github-actions bot added size/L and removed waiting-response size/XL labels Nov 7, 2024

stephybun requested changes Nov 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

update error message & document

93d6efd

stephybun approved these changes Nov 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

stephybun merged commit b70594c into hashicorp:main Nov 7, 2024
32 checks passed

github-actions bot added this to the v4.9.0 milestone Nov 7, 2024

ziyeqf deleted the sentinel_fusion_exisiting branch November 8, 2024 02:18

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

`azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion` - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

`azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion` - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

ziyeqf commented Oct 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

katbyte Oct 24, 2024

ziyeqf Oct 25, 2024

ziyeqf commented Oct 30, 2024

stephybun Oct 30, 2024

ziyeqf Oct 30, 2024

ziyeqf commented Oct 30, 2024

stephybun Oct 30, 2024

ziyeqf commented Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 7, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun Nov 6, 2024

stephybun left a comment

ziyeqf commented Nov 7, 2024

stephybun Nov 7, 2024

stephybun Nov 7, 2024

stephybun left a comment

		@@ -50,6 +41,7 @@ resource "azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion" "example" {
		The following arguments are supported:

		* `name` - (Required) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created.

		* `name` - (Optional) The name which should be used for this Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule. Changing this forces a new Sentinel Fusion Alert Rule to be created.
		Note: The `name` is deprecated and will be removed in v5.0 version of the provider. The Fusion Alert Rule is enabled by default with the name `BuiltInFusion`, more details could be found [here](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/configure-fusion-rules#configure-scheduled-analytics-rules-for-fusion-detections).

	return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %q: %+v", id, err)
	return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: %+v", id, err)

	return fmt.Errorf("asserting alert rule of %q: %+v", id, err)
	return fmt.Errorf("asserting alert rule of %s: %+v", id, err)

-	payload := resp.Model.(alertrules.FusionAlertRule)
+	if resp.Model == nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: `model` was nil", id)
+	}
+	payload, ok := resp.Model.(alertrules.FusionAlertRule)
+	if !ok {
+		return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: expected an alert rule of type `Fusion`, got %q", pointer.From(resp.Model.AlertRule().Type))
+	}
+	if payload.Properties == nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: `properties` was nil", id)
+	}

	if payload.Properties == nil {
	payload.Properties = &alertrules.FusionAlertRuleProperties{}
	}

	return fmt.Errorf("creating Sentinel Alert Rule Fusion %q: %+v", id, err)
	return fmt.Errorf("updating %s: %+v", id, err)


		### `azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion`

		* The deprecated `name` property has been removed.

azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

Conversation

ziyeqf commented Oct 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Community Note

Description

PR Checklist

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

Testing

Change Log

Related Issue(s)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziyeqf commented Oct 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziyeqf commented Oct 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziyeqf commented Nov 6, 2024

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

stephybun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziyeqf commented Nov 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stephybun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

`azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion` - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

`azurerm_sentinel_alert_rule_fusion` - remove existing check for built in rule #27653

ziyeqf commented Oct 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading