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_vpn_gateway - support block "bgp_peering_addresses" #9035

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 10, 2020

Conversation

njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor

@njuCZ njuCZ commented Oct 27, 2020

After confirmed with service team, this field "bgp_peering_addresses" could not be set when creating, otherwise the rest api will report error. It could only be updated.

image

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 the PR @njuCZ - however i think the block/properties are poorly named and confusing.

it seems like the block is tied to an "instance" and then these are the addresses for it? we should name the block something that is a bit more explicit, like bgp_ip|instance_peering_addresses and then inside ip|instance_id ?

website/docs/r/vpn_gateway.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/vpn_gateway.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azurerm/internal/services/network/vpn_gateway_resource.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/vpn_gateway.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
website/docs/r/vpn_gateway.html.markdown Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

njuCZ commented Oct 28, 2020

Hi @katbyte thanks for your review. After consulting the service team further, they say IpconfigurationID is fixed to Instance0 and Instance1. Users could not change it.

The portal's experience is: creating VPN Gateway only needs parameters of AS number and gateway scale units. and updating could only update custom bgp ip address, the picture is shown blow
image

So my sugggestion is to make IpconfigurationID computed, and limit the size of instance_bgp_peering_address block to 2. Do you think it is ok? I have modified this PR, could you have a look again?

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.

Hey @njuCZ - i've been thinking about this on and off for a week and i dont' this the current schema is very clear or good ux. I've left some comments inline but basically i think creating two named blocks might be the best and most clear solution here? WDYT?

…p_peering_address` and `instance_1_bgp_peering_address`
@njuCZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

njuCZ commented Nov 10, 2020

@katbyte thanks for your review, I have modifed this PR, please have a look when free

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 @njuCZ - LGTM 👍

@katbyte katbyte merged commit 4430978 into hashicorp:master Nov 10, 2020
@katbyte katbyte added this to the v2.36.0 milestone Nov 10, 2020
katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2020
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 12, 2020

This has been released in version 2.36.0 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 = "~> 2.36.0"
}
# ... other configuration ...

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Dec 11, 2020

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 Dec 11, 2020
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.

3 participants