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

Added an example integration between azurerm_api_management and azurerm_linux_function_app #28288

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

azarboon
Copy link
Contributor

@azarboon azarboon commented Dec 15, 2024

Community Note

  • Please vote on this PR by adding a 👍 reaction to the original PR to help the community and maintainers prioritize for review
  • Please do not leave comments along the lines of "+1", "me too" or "any updates", they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

This example demonstrates a functional integration between Azure API Management and Azure Linux Function App. As existing samples are outdated and the documentation for both the Terraform AzureRM provider and Azure API Management contains notable gaps, this example aims to bridge those deficiencies. By providing this sample code, I hope to assist others in successfully implementing this integration.

PR Checklist

  • I have followed the guidelines in our Contributing Documentation.
  • I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
  • I have checked if my changes close any open issues. If so please include appropriate closing keywords below.
  • I have updated/added Documentation as required written in a helpful and kind way to assist users that may be unfamiliar with the resource / data source.
  • I have used a meaningful PR title to help maintainers and other users understand this change and help prevent duplicate work.
    For example: “resource_name_here - description of change e.g. adding property new_property_name_here

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

  • I have added an explanation of what my changes do and why I'd like you to include them (This may be covered by linking to an issue above, but may benefit from additional explanation).
  • I have written new tests for my resource or datasource changes & updated any relevent documentation.
  • I have successfully run tests with my changes locally. If not, please provide details on testing challenges that prevented you running the tests.
  • (For changes that include a state migration only). I have manually tested the migration path between relevant versions of the provider.

Testing

  • My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass. (if this is not possible for any reason, please include details of why you did or could not add test coverage)

Change Log

Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.

  • azurerm_resource - support for the thing1 property [GH-00000]

This is a (please select all that apply):

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature (ie adding a service, resource, or data source)
  • Enhancement
  • Breaking Change

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #0000

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

@azarboon azarboon requested a review from a team as a code owner December 15, 2024 04:52
@azarboon azarboon changed the title Add example integration between azurerm_api_management and azurerm_linux_function_app Added an example integration between azurerm_api_management and azurerm_linux_function_app Dec 15, 2024
@azarboon
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some automated "validate-examples" have failed. Upon inspecting them, it seems they are failing on previous codes and apparently my newly added example code passes the test.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants