[Enhancement]: Add SVM storage_limit parameter

[acch]

Adds ability to configure storage_limit parameter of SVM.

Closes #302.

Acceptance tests pass:

$ TF_ACC=1 go test ./internal/provider/svm/svm_resource_test.go -v
=== RUN   TestAccSvmResource
--- PASS: TestAccSvmResource (33.36s)
PASS
ok      command-line-arguments  33.367s

Example Terraform Configuration:

// sample SVM with storage_limit parameter
resource "netapp-ontap_svm" "example" {
  cx_profile_name = ...
  name            = ...
  ...
  storage_limit   = "4294967296"
}

[carchi8py]

@acch before we can accept this we need you to follow this (https://github.com/NetApp/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/blob/integration/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). I think the only steps missing right now is step 5.

[acch]

@carchi8py I had signed the NetApp CCLA on Oct 16... please let me know what's missing.

[carchi8py]

@acch thank i have that now. Look like the email group we were using was not accepting External email so we didn't get a copy. We've fix that and have your CCLA.

[carchi8py]

We have a major version 2.0 that in the final stages of our legal review.

We will be adding this in to our 2.1 release which will be the release after that one.

[carchi8py]

@acch Happy Holidays, just a head up we will be reviewing this shorting. Sorry for the hold up we were waiting on Security to finish their review of 2.0 before releasing it and that ended up taking significantly longer than we had hope. Now that, that out of the way we are starting to merge thing in again. Right now I'm working on getting all the dependencies updated and then we'll start review these.

Probably will have review the first week of Jan (or end of this week if I have time).

[acch]

Happy Holidays @carchi8py! Thanks for the update.
I'll be back in the office the first week of Jan., and will check if anything needs rebasing...

Please let me know what I can do to help.

Thanks much for all your efforts — enjoy a few days off! 🎄

[chuyich]

@acch Since storage_limit is the new field and only supported 9.13 or higher, please update the support platform section on the document of data source and resource under docs.
Also, the version check has to be done. You may check this as a reference.

[chuyich]

Please update doc and add version check.

[acch]

Hello @chuyich, thank you very much for reviewing this PR.

I have updated the docs and added cluster version checks to GetSvmByName*(). Acceptance tests (still) pass.
Please let me know if this is acceptable, or what is missing.

Thanks much!

[chuyich]

It is an optional parameter based on the API doc https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap-restapi-9131/ontap/post-svm-svms.html#recommended-optional-properties
The default value is not needed.

[acch]

Without a default value, the attribute remains "unknown" after the apply - resulting in the following error:

╷
│ Error: Provider returned invalid result object after apply
│ 
│ After the apply operation, the provider still indicated an unknown value for netapp-ontap_svm.example.storage_limit. All values must be known after apply, so this is
│ always a bug in the provider and should be reported in the provider's own repository. Terraform will still save the other known object values in the state.
╵

I could manually set the value to 0 in internal/provider/svm/svm_resource.go > Create(), but isn't a default value in the schema definition easier to read & understand?

[chuyich]

You may use

        PlanModifiers: []planmodifier.Int64{
              IntUseStateForUnknown(),
       },

ref. https://github.com/NetApp/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/blob/integration/main/internal/provider/storage/storage_aggregate_resource.go#L159 and see how to handle this parameter in creation/read/update. Since it's optional in the API call, the default value does not have to be set.

[chuyich]

Since it's optional, it should be set omitempty.

[acch]

OK, I did mark the optional storage and (nested) limit params as 'omitempty'. However, there's some code in place to delete empty params from the request body, which I've adapted to... don't think 'omitempty' will make any difference.

https://github.com/acch/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/blob/ceeb032a1923209353296a28db20468801db729d/internal/interfaces/svm.go#L221-L232

	if setAggrEmpty {
		delete(body, "aggregates")
	}
	if setCommentEmpty {
		delete(body, "comment")
	}
	if setStorageLimitEmpty {
		// delete storage.limit from request body, so that ONTAP uses default value
		if v, ok := body["storage"].(map[string]interface{}); ok {
			delete(v, "limit")
		}
	}

[chuyich]

You may check https://github.com/NetApp/terraform-provider-netapp-ontap/blob/integration/main/internal/provider/storage/storage_volume_resource.go#L647

[acch]

Thanks @carchi8py and @chuyich for your feedback!

I've added the storage_limit argument to the docs. I was under the impression that these lists are generated automatically, due to the schema generated by tfplugindocs comment... Now understand that they need to be updated manually.

I've also marked the optional params as 'omitempty', and did verify that acceptance tests (still) pass.
Please let me know if this is acceptable, or what is missing.

Thanks much!

[carchi8py]

@acch sorry for the late response, i was out last week with a small family emergency.

We will need you to rebase all your pull requests. There was a security issue that required us to rewrite the git history that we made last week. Because of this any pull request or Fork that hasn't rebased is going to appear as all files have been modified. Can you please rebase your pull request.

[acch]

@carchi8py Sure, I just rebased all PR's.

For our internal planning: how much more time do you think will be required to incorporate our changes into a release available from Terraform registry? Is there already a (rough) target for the 2.1 release?

[carchi8py]

@acch we don't have a rough date for a release. Let me talk to the team.

But we don't have any hard requirement for 2.1 so we should be able to make 2.1 just your 6 pull request once there merge in and anything move everything else to 2.2.

[acch]

@carchi8py Are we good to merge this PR?

Please let me know what I need to do exactly to have the PRs added to the provider. My understanding is that I've addressed all requested changes... please let me know what's missing.

Many thanks!