provider/vsphere: Add insecure option for 'insecure' SSL requests

[tkak]

This fixes #3521.

[jen20]

I think we should consider naming this allow_unverified_ssl such that it consistent with the Rundeck provider, and in order that it describes more clearly exactly which form of insecurity is invited?

[phinze]

+1 lets use allow_unverified_ssl as the parameter name here.

[jen20]

Hi @tkak! Thanks for opening up this PR. I've left some comments inline; could you review them and let me know your thoughts?

[chrislovecnm]

@tkak you have a couple of moments to tweak the name??

[tkak]

@jen20 Thanks for the review! For the reason of insecure, I referenced the usage of VMware vSphere go library.
https://github.com/vmware/govmomi/blob/8f2d79fd740b69c4f64d10e8ac0b8c6b30247c0d/examples/datastores/main.go#L70.

And insecure parameter is used at the OpenStack provider.

[jen20]

Hi @tkak - In this case I still think allow_unverified_ssl is better than insecure (and that we should actually update the OpenStack provider as well and deprecate insecure).

[jtopjian]

(I have gmail filters for "openstack" so I saw this conversation 😄 )

I'm mixed on the rename. On one hand, I totally agree that allow_unverified_ssl is more intuitive than insecure, but on the other hand, insecure is used widely outside of Terraform.

Edit for clarification: insecure has almost become a standard option for any type of SSL bypass. For example, man wget and man curl and search for insecure.

[chrislovecnm]

@jen20 @jtopjian @phinze - who can make a call? I would like to just get this in 😆

[tkak]

@jen20 I've fixed insecure parameter to allow_unverified_ssl 😄 . Because I think intuitiveness is more important than precedents for TF configuration file.

[phinze]

This looks good - just needs a rebase and we can get it merged. 👍

[phinze]

I too prefer the more intuitive name over respecting precedent, provided we are doing what we can to remain consistent within Terraform.

[tkak]

@phinze I tried to rebase. 👍

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.