azurerm_sentinel_threat_intelligence_indicator
- display_name
forces new, add custom poller to fix Root resource was present, but now absent
#30037
+156
−24
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Community Note
Description
API side issue tracked by Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#35551
azsdkhacks
workaround, to avoid overriding the read-only propertiesdisplay_name
forces new, since the API side does not allow edit.PR Checklist
For example: “
resource_name_here
- description of change e.g. adding propertynew_property_name_here
”Changes to existing Resource / Data Source
Testing
I suppose the
update
test case requires an upgradtion on API-version to fix, I will do it in another PR.Change Log
Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.
azurerm_sentinel_threat_intelligence_indicator
- add custom poller to fixRoot resource was present, but now absent
[GH-00000]azurerm_sentinel_threat_intelligence_indicator
- display_name forces new,This is a (please select all that apply):
Related Issue(s)
Fixes #0000
Rollback Plan
If a change needs to be reverted, we will publish an updated version of the provider.
Changes to Security Controls
Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.
Note
If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.