-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
fix overwriting of name
field for IAM Group user in resourceSqlUserRead method
#11466
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
Conversation
…for IAM group user.
Hello! I am a robot. Tests will require approval from a repository maintainer to run. @BBBmau, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to review your changes. If you have not received review feedback within 2 business days, please leave a comment on this PR asking them to take a look. You can help make sure that review is quick by doing a self-review and by running impacted tests locally. |
name
field for IAM Group user in resourceSqlUserRead method
Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes: Diff reportYour PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
|
Tests analyticsTotal tests: 96 Click here to see the affected service packages
View the build log |
@BBBmau This PR has been waiting for review for 3 weekdays. Please take a look! Use the label |
Hi @BBBmau, Could you please take a look at this pull request for review? |
Is there a ticket for this issue or could you provide an explanation of the change? I am not familiar with this resource. |
Also if a testcase could be added showing exactly what was broken and is now fixed that would be great ! |
Issue: Explanation: Condition 1:
Condition 2:
During IAM group creation on the instance, the condition that triggers the issue is the naming convention used for the built-in users & IAM user/groups and corresponding alphabetical order. If the IAM group user comes last in the order, we'll see the issue. |
It was tested locally, but difficult to reproduce via unit test |
Got it!! This change seems reasonable. We are currently frozen for 6.0 release but I'll approve this once things move along. I'm going to leave this PR as unreviewed simply to maintain it in my review queue and that I don't lose track of it. |
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.
unfroze early.. merging now.
Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)