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

Add authoritative IAM policy binding for KMS Crypto Keys #2879

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 20, 2019

Conversation

danawillow
Copy link
Contributor

@danawillow danawillow commented Dec 20, 2019

Upstreams hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#4164, plus a few small changes on my end that you can see in the commits.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

`google_kms_crypto_key_iam_policy`

@googlebot
Copy link

All (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) CLAs are signed, but one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter.

We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that by leaving a comment that contains only @googlebot I consent. in this pull request.

Note to project maintainer: There may be cases where the author cannot leave a comment, or the comment is not properly detected as consent. In those cases, you can manually confirm consent of the commit author(s), and set the cla label to yes (if enabled on your project).

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician, I work on Magic Modules.
I see that this PR has already had some downstream PRs generated. Any open downstreams are already updated to your most recent commit, d150177.

Pull request statuses

No diff detected in terraform-google-conversion.
No diff detected in Ansible.
No diff detected in Inspec.

New Pull Requests

I built this PR into one or more new PRs on other repositories, and when those are closed, this PR will also be merged and closed.
depends: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google-beta#1554
depends: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#5247

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician, I work on Magic Modules.
I see that this PR has already had some downstream PRs generated. Any open downstreams are already updated to your most recent commit, ce27ba3.

Pull request statuses

terraform-provider-google-beta already has an open PR.
No diff detected in terraform-google-conversion.
terraform-provider-google already has an open PR.
No diff detected in Ansible.
No diff detected in Inspec.

New Pull Requests

I didn't open any new pull requests because of this PR.

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician, I work on Magic Modules.
I see that this PR has already had some downstream PRs generated. Any open downstreams are already updated to your most recent commit, 678a01c.

Pull request statuses

terraform-provider-google-beta already has an open PR.
No diff detected in terraform-google-conversion.
terraform-provider-google already has an open PR.
No diff detected in Ansible.
No diff detected in Inspec.

New Pull Requests

I didn't open any new pull requests because of this PR.

@danawillow danawillow requested a review from slevenick December 20, 2019 23:06
@@ -352,6 +352,7 @@ end # products.each do
"google_kms_key_ring_iam_policy": ResourceIamPolicy(IamKmsKeyRingSchema, NewKmsKeyRingIamUpdater, KeyRingIdParseFunc),
"google_kms_crypto_key_iam_binding": ResourceIamBinding(IamKmsCryptoKeySchema, NewKmsCryptoKeyIamUpdater, CryptoIdParseFunc),
"google_kms_crypto_key_iam_member": ResourceIamMember(IamKmsCryptoKeySchema, NewKmsCryptoKeyIamUpdater, CryptoIdParseFunc),
"google_kms_crypto_key_iam_policy": ResourceIamPolicy(IamKmsCryptoKeySchema, NewKmsCryptoKeyIamUpdater, CryptoIdParseFunc),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was there no iam_policy resource previously?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nope! I don't really know why, I just assume whoever created the original PR didn't need it.

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.

5 participants