Add support for business units. #498
Conversation
|
@VictorAvelar great! I will take a look this week and test it out! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I primarily looked at the schema for the resources, and left some comments there.
I also tried running the example in resource.tf, but it broke even after fixing the issues I also left in the comments.
Some other things I hope you can add:
- please run
task docs. It will generate documentation based on the schemas - please split the
examples/resources/commercetools_business_unit/resource.tftoexamples/resources/commercetools_business_unit_company/resource.tfandexamples/resources/commercetools_business_unit_division/resource.tf. This will add these examples to the docs also. It is also nice to add resources for related stuff likecommercetools_storein the same example, so users can more easily see what can be attached
| // Only available for division business units as the Company | ||
| // business unit has no parent unit and must always be the Top Level Unit. | ||
| parent_unit { | ||
| key = commercetools_business_unit_company.acme-company.key |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| key = commercetools_business_unit_company.acme-company.key | |
| key = commercetools_business_unit_company.acme_company.key |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Schema implements resource.Resource. | ||
| func (b *divisionResource) Schema(_ context.Context, req resource.SchemaRequest, res *resource.SchemaResponse) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we move this one (and the related model and tests) to a different folder? So resources/business_unit_company and resources/business_unit_division? We try to keep it one folder per resource
| name = "Willie Coyote - Traps for Roadrunners" | ||
| status = "Active" | ||
| contact_email = "acme-traps@example.com" | ||
| store_mode = "FromParent" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this one is not actually part of the definition?
| // business unit has no parent unit and must always be the Top Level Unit. | ||
| parent_unit { | ||
| key = commercetools_business_unit_company.acme-company.key | ||
| type_id = "company" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| type_id = "company" | |
| type_id = "Company" |
| default_billing_address_id = "acme-business-unit-address" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| resource "commercetools_business_unit_division" "acme-willie-coyote" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The address are also required, might be nice to add it to the example
| Description: "User-defined unique identifier of the Business Unit", | ||
| Required: true, | ||
| }, | ||
| "type_id": schema.StringAttribute{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this one is always business-unit, so this can be removed (and the validation is incorrect). Instead we should add id as an optional input, and make key optional also
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "stores": schema.ListNestedBlock{ |
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "inherited_associates": schema.ListNestedBlock{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this one will have much value in the context of a terraform provider (it is eventually consistent and a result of other resources made). Do you have a usecase where this might be useful?
| stringvalidator.OneOf(BusinessUnitActive, BusinessUnitInactive), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "associate_mode": schema.StringAttribute{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is missing the validation, and can be defaulted to ExplicitAndFromParent (and thus not required)
| res.Schema = schema.Schema{ | ||
| Description: "Business Unit type to represent the top level of a business. Contains specific fields and values that differentiate a Company from the generic BusinessUnit.\n\n" + | ||
| "See also the [Business Unit API Documentation](https://docs.commercetools.com/api/projects/business-units", | ||
| Attributes: map[string]schema.Attribute{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
storeMode is missing as an option (and can be optional and default to FromParent
|
Hi @VictorAvelar! If that is ok with you I will grab your branch and finish up the code! We have an internal use case for these features, so I can use your PR as a base for that :) |
|
Please go ahead, I couldn't find the time yet to finish it. |
This PR adds support for business units.
It is a follow up to #431 and addresses the previously recommended changes. It also partially addresses #443.
NEW FEATURES