-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
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
Create MongoDB v3.6 with azurerm_cosmosdb_account (#4757) #5325
Create MongoDB v3.6 with azurerm_cosmosdb_account (#4757) #5325
Conversation
Awesome ! Any idea when this is going to be merged ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @aristosvo,
Thanks for the PR. This LGTM 🚀
@@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ func resourceArmCosmosDbAccount() *schema.Resource { | |||
"EnableTable", | |||
"EnableGremlin", | |||
"EnableCassandra", | |||
"EnableMongo", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we get a test that sets this value??
@aristosvo, wrt validations I really like your idea of adding boolean properties to the |
This has been released in version 1.42.0 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 = "~> 1.42.0"
}
# ... other configuration ... |
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 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks! |
Fixes #4757 for service/cosmosdb
FWIW, in #4757 are also validations mentioned. I'm looking into implementing these, but I'm not sure wheter these should be here in a custom validate function or not. If they should be here, the question is if I should break the existing contract to implement these (with more validations) in the schema: