198 contract directives #238

akinross · 2023-08-21T09:28:18Z

fixes #198

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

examples/schema_template_contract/main.tf

sajagana

LGTM!

shrsr · 2023-09-05T16:09:46Z

examples/schema_template_contract/main.tf

+    filter_type          = "bothWay"
+    action               = "deny"
+    priority             = "level2"
+    directives           = ["log", ]


directives = ["log", ] -> directives = ["log"]

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

examples/schema_template_contract/main.tf

anvitha-jain · 2023-09-07T21:13:51Z

website/docs/d/schema_template_contract.html.markdown

+    * `filter_schema_id` - (Read-Only) The schema ID of the Filter.
+    * `filter_template_name` - (Read-Only) The template name of the Filter.
+    * `filter_name` - (Read-Only) The name of the Filter.
+* `directives` - **Deprecated** (Read-Only) The directives of the Filter.


filter_relationships and directives -> -(Read-Only) Deprecated

anvitha-jain · 2023-09-07T21:16:20Z

website/docs/r/schema_template_contract.html.markdown

-  * `filter_relationship.filter_name` - (Required) The filter to associate with this contract.
-
-* `directives` - (Required) A list of filter directives. Allowed values are `log` and `none`.
+* `directives` -  **Deprecated** (Optional) A list of filter directives. Allowed values are `none`, `no_stats`, and `log`.


Deprecated (Optional) -> could we use any one of the format in consistance?

shrsr

LGTM

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

shrsr

LGTM

sajagana · 2023-09-14T11:15:03Z

website/docs/r/schema_template_contract.html.markdown

+* `filter_relationship` - (Optional) A list of Filter Relationships for the Contract.
+  * `filter_relationship.filter_name` - (Required) The name of the Filter associated with the Contract.
+  * `filter_relationship.filter_schema_id` - (Optional) The schema ID of the Filter associated with the Contract.
+  * `filter_relationship.filter_template_name` - (Optional) The template name of the Filter associated with the Contract.
+  * `filter_relationship.filter_type` - (Optional) The type of the Filter associated with the Contract. Allowed values are `bothWay`, `consumer_to_provider` and `provider_to_consumer`. Defaults to `bothWay`.
+  * `filter_relationship.directives` - (Optional)  A list of filter directives associated with the Contract. Allowed values are `none`, `no_stats`, and `log`.
+  * `filter_relationship.action` - (Optional) The action of the Filter associated with the Contract. Allowed values are `deny` and `permit`. 
+  * `filter_relationship.priority` - (Optional) The override priority of the Filter associated with the Contract. Allowed values are `default`, `level1`, `level2`, and `level3`. 
+
+* `filter_relationships` - (Optional) **Deprecated** A Map to provide one Filter Relationship. This attribute is deprecated, use `filter_relationship` instead. It is not allowed to use in combination with `filter_relationship`.
  * `filter_relationships.filter_schema_id` - (Optional) The schemaId in which the filter is located.
  * `filter_relationships.filter_template_name` - (Optional) The template name in which the filter is located.
  * `filter_relationships.filter_name` - (Required) The filter to associate with this contract.


Please fix the document formatting to match with data source and also add the type for the filter_relationship

filter_type is already added for filter_relationship

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

sajagana

LGTM!

shrsr

LGTM

lhercot · 2023-10-05T17:23:41Z

mso/datasource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

+				},
+			},
+			"filter_relationships": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeMap,


This need to be TypeList, aren't you mixing up filter_relationships and filter_relationship in the data source vs the resource?

No we had the discussion regarding this. I originally got confused by this and introduced a change in (fdb2c1e) but that was wrong change. Occurred due to the confusing naming. What I should have done back then was introduce the filter_relationship type list attribute in the datasource, to be consistent with the resource. This change is the revert of that commit with the new attributes added to the filter_relationship (list type).

lhercot · 2023-10-05T17:26:02Z

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go

+					"oneWay",
+				}, false),
+			},
+			"filter_relationship": {


Why did we flip filter_relationship and filter_relationships order in schema? This breaks the diff calculation quite a lot.

lhercot · 2023-10-05T17:41:02Z

website/docs/d/schema_template_contract.html.markdown

+* `filter_relationship` - (Read-Only) A List of Filter relationships.
    * `filter_schema_id` - (Read-Only) The schema ID of the Filter.
    * `filter_template_name` - (Read-Only) The template name of the Filter.
    * `filter_name` - (Read-Only) The name of the Filter.
+    * `filter_type` - (Read-Only) The type of the Filter. 
    * `action` - (Read-Only) The action of the Filter.
    * `directives` - (Read-Only) The directives of the Filter.
+    * `priority` - (Read-Only) The priority override of the Filter.
+
+* `filter_relationships` - (Read-Only) **Deprecated** A map of the Filter relationship.
+    * `filter_schema_id` - (Read-Only) The schema ID of the Filter.
+    * `filter_template_name` - (Read-Only) The template name of the Filter.
+    * `filter_name` - (Read-Only) The name of the Filter.


Are we removing attributes from the existing filter_relationships?

No filter_relationships is the original map that contained 3 attributes schema_id/template_name/name. This is confusing because the naming was wrong. Where originally there was filter_relationships which was a map, then filter_relationship was added after for the list form (e718007). So we are not removing we are just not providing any new attributes to the filter_relationships map, since it is deprecated.

…ority to filter_relationship attribute and add target_dscp and priority attributes to mso_schema_template_conract and add input validation for attributes and align datasource with resource

…in example

…ing comma

…ix idempotency for order of directives in filter relationship for mso_schema_template_contract

…ilter_relationship attributes

…adjusted examples

lhercot

LGTM

akinross requested review from lhercot, shrsr, anvitha-jain and sajagana August 21, 2023 09:28

sajagana requested changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go Show resolved Hide resolved

akinross force-pushed the 198_contract_directives branch from 841fda9 to ef5465a Compare August 25, 2023 11:08

akinross requested a review from sajagana August 25, 2023 11:18

sajagana requested changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

examples/schema_template_contract/main.tf Show resolved Hide resolved

akinross requested a review from sajagana August 28, 2023 10:35

sajagana previously approved these changes Aug 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

shrsr requested changes Sep 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

akinross dismissed sajagana’s stale review via bd3d8ee September 5, 2023 19:27

akinross requested review from shrsr and sajagana September 5, 2023 19:30

anvitha-jain requested changes Sep 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

akinross requested a review from anvitha-jain September 8, 2023 09:53

shrsr approved these changes Sep 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

anvitha-jain previously approved these changes Sep 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

shrsr requested changes Sep 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go Show resolved Hide resolved

mso/resource_mso_schema_template_contract.go Show resolved Hide resolved

shrsr self-requested a review September 11, 2023 20:30

shrsr previously approved these changes Sep 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

sajagana requested changes Sep 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

akinross dismissed stale reviews from shrsr and anvitha-jain via 8ba8fa4 September 14, 2023 12:12

akinross requested review from sajagana, anvitha-jain and shrsr September 14, 2023 12:14

sajagana previously approved these changes Sep 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

anvitha-jain previously approved these changes Sep 15, 2023

View reviewed changes

shrsr previously approved these changes Sep 15, 2023

View reviewed changes

lhercot requested changes Oct 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

akinross requested a review from lhercot October 5, 2023 19:02

akinross added 8 commits October 5, 2023 22:03

[minor_change] add attributes filter_type, directives, action and pri…

edaed8f

…ority to filter_relationship attribute and add target_dscp and priority attributes to mso_schema_template_conract and add input validation for attributes and align datasource with resource

[ignore] update schema_template_contract example

48f3fef

[ignore] update example with correct tenant and schema configuration …

9880fa4

…in example

[ignore] fix example for mso_schema_template_contract remove of trail…

5122505

…ing comma

[ignore] fix deprecated filter_relationships in update function and f…

3822d4d

…ix idempotency for order of directives in filter relationship for mso_schema_template_contract

[ignore] fix for overwriting schemaId and tenplateName correctly in f…

c9e1d06

…ilter_relationship attributes

[ignore] fix for handling contracts without filtersrelationships and …

48ee21b

…adjusted examples

[ignore] update documentation for schema_template_contract

0f6f050

akinross dismissed stale reviews from shrsr, anvitha-jain, and sajagana via 0f6f050 October 5, 2023 20:03

akinross force-pushed the 198_contract_directives branch from 8ba8fa4 to 0f6f050 Compare October 5, 2023 20:03

lhercot approved these changes Oct 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

lhercot merged commit cec2049 into CiscoDevNet:master Oct 5, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

198 contract directives #238

198 contract directives #238

akinross commented Aug 21, 2023

sajagana left a comment

shrsr Sep 5, 2023

anvitha-jain Sep 7, 2023

anvitha-jain Sep 7, 2023

shrsr left a comment

shrsr left a comment

sajagana Sep 14, 2023

akinross Sep 14, 2023

sajagana left a comment

shrsr left a comment

lhercot Oct 5, 2023

akinross Oct 5, 2023

lhercot Oct 5, 2023

lhercot Oct 5, 2023

akinross Oct 5, 2023

lhercot left a comment

198 contract directives #238

198 contract directives #238

Conversation

akinross commented Aug 21, 2023

sajagana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sajagana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lhercot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment