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

Prevent creation ofusers and admins groups #1091

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2022
Merged

Prevent creation ofusers and admins groups #1091

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2022

Conversation

nfx
Copy link
Contributor

@nfx nfx commented Feb 4, 2022

image

Fix #1089

Copy link
Contributor

@alexott alexott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, maybe only requires make fmt

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 4, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1091 (772291a) into master (89145fa) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1091      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.93%   90.95%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         110      110              
  Lines        9469     9472       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         8611     8615       +4     
+ Misses        509      508       -1     
  Partials      349      349              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
scim/resource_group.go 96.87% <100.00%> (+0.15%) ⬆️
sqlanalytics/resource_widget.go 87.50% <0.00%> (+0.73%) ⬆️

@nfx
Copy link
Contributor Author

nfx commented Feb 4, 2022

@alexott did run fmt, no changes

@nfx nfx merged commit bddadd9 into master Feb 4, 2022
@nfx nfx deleted the issue/1089 branch February 4, 2022 12:08
michael-berk pushed a commit to michael-berk/terraform-provider-databricks that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2023
@ebarault
Copy link

ebarault commented Jul 9, 2024

@nfx hi!
arfff, i just discovered this while upgrading the databricks terraform provider version to latest

this has one main drawback/side effect: consider you want to deal with admins group memberships in terraform, and for this you imported the admins group within your modules.

something like
image

now, this piece of code won't work since it raises this error

Error: expected display_name to not be any of [users admins], got admins

@ebarault
Copy link

ebarault commented Jul 9, 2024

i guess, I need now to refactor this to use the group data source
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/databricks/databricks/latest/docs/data-sources/group#example-usage

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[ISSUE] The databricks_group resource shouldn't allow you to specify system groups
3 participants