New Resource - azurerm_cost_management_export

[MattiasAng]

Fixes #11598.

Changes:

• Updated costmanagement SDK to 2020-06-01
• Added parsers and validation for Billing resource IDs.
• Handle multiple providers in resource ID in ParseAzureResourceIDWithoutSubscription.

The parsing it quite ugly here but I couldn't come up with a better idea since ID always starts with the scope which creates a lot of different variations. Any feedback is welcome.

I haven't been able to run TestAccCostManagementExport_managementgroup due to requirement of EA subscription which I don't have access to at the moment.

This resource will also supersed azurerm_cost_management_export_resource_group so let me know if we should add a note there.

[mikeeq]

Guys any progress on this one?

[upegnasrame]

any chances of getting this feature added to new release ?

[stephybun]

Thanks for this PR and your patience @MattiasAng. This is a great start! I've left some suggestions and it would be great if the merge conflicts could also be resolved.

[tombuildsstuff]

hey @MattiasAng

Thanks for this PR / apologies for the delayed review here.

Within the Azure Provider we're moving away from generic resources which support a scope field in favour of separate resources for each scope (where possible). This is primarily for UX reasons given how the Azure API behaves when an invalid scope is specified, or when a scope is specified that doesn't exist which leads to the API returning unclear error messages. Historically this has also been a source of user confusion at import time, when importing a resource from an invalid scope (or with a typo) and getting an "API Version {some version} doesn't exist" error.

Although the new generic resource in this PR works, to be able to ship this and workaround the problems mentioned above we'd need to split this into a number of sub-resources. Whilst that initially sounds like a lot of code, we can use the technique used in the Policy Assignment resources to be able to split this out with minimal code, that involves:

1. A base resource e.g. ./internal/services/policy/assignment_base_resource.go
2. A resource (and tests) for each scope e.g. internal/services/policy/assignment_management_group_resource.go

Whilst that's a little more work within the Provider, ultimately that means that we can avoid these issues for users (who'll have less context about these issues) which is a worthwhile trade-off.

As such whilst I'd like to thank you for this contribution (and apologies for the delay giving this feedback) - since we're going to have to take a different approach here (which is quite a bit more work) I'm going to suggest that @stephybun takes a look into splitting this into a base resource - at which point it's possible to add these other resources pretty easily.

Thanks!

[stephybun]

There is an open PR which contains the cost management export base resource as well as resources for the scopes subscription and resource group, as such I am going to close this in favour of #14140.

[github-actions]

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.