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

azurerm_cosmosdb_table doesn't call get throughput api when cosmos account is serverless #9749

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 27, 2020

Conversation

AxelLiu
Copy link
Contributor

@AxelLiu AxelLiu commented Dec 8, 2020

This is a fix for #9417

This is based on #8673 #9311 #9187

make testacc TEST=./azurerm/internal/services/cosmos TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable' TESTTIMEOUT='60m'

=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_basic
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_update
=== PAUSE TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_update
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_autoscale
=== PAUSE TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_autoscale
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_serverless
=== PAUSE TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_serverless
=== CONT  TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_basic
=== CONT  TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_serverless
=== CONT  TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_autoscale
=== CONT  TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_update
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_serverless (1144.46s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_basic (1161.52s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_update (1319.06s)
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMCosmosDbTable_autoscale (1664.11s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/internal/services/cosmos      1664.166s

(fixes #9417)

@ghost ghost added the size/M label Dec 8, 2020
@AxelLiu
Copy link
Contributor Author

AxelLiu commented Dec 10, 2020

Hi @jackofallops
Is there anything I can do for this PR?
Thx.

@AxelLiu
Copy link
Contributor Author

AxelLiu commented Dec 19, 2020

Hi @tombuildsstuff,
Sorry for bothering you, just wonder if I can do anything to make this PR go forward.
Thx.

Copy link
Collaborator

@katbyte katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this @AxelLiu - this LGTM 🚀

@katbyte katbyte added this to the v2.42.0 milestone Dec 27, 2020
@katbyte katbyte merged commit 29cc51f into hashicorp:master Dec 27, 2020
katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 27, 2020
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 8, 2021

This has been released in version 2.42.0 of the provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. As an example:

provider "azurerm" {
    version = "~> 2.42.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@OisinKyne
Copy link

Hi @AxelLiu, has this PR fixed your issue? Since this PR has gone in, I can now create the resource once, but the very next read that happens after the create still fails. I have to delete the resource through the UI to manage a terraform destroy/apply.

#9417 (comment)

@AxelLiu
Copy link
Contributor Author

AxelLiu commented Jan 21, 2021

Hi @OisinKyne, this PR only fixes cosmos_table.
And it's working fine with me since this fix has been merged.
I think you can use the similar way to fix mongo cosmos dbs.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 27, 2021

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 feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 27, 2021
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.

Creation/updating azurerm_cosmosdb_table for Serverless CosmosDB returns errors
3 participants