azurerm_container_app: Add support for new attribute kind

[jiaweitao001]

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 PR will add support for kind attribute in the azurerm_container_app resource and resolve issue #30257 .

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 relevant 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 #30257

AI Assistance Disclosure

• AI Assisted - This contribution was made by, or with the assistance of, AI/LLMs

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.

[jackofallops]

Hi @jiaweitao001 - There's no description on the PR?

Also, we do not expose kind apart from in exceptional circumstances, and typically need to expose the different kind values as separate resources due to functional or schema incompatibilities that emerge over time. Is there any meaningful difference to these kind values?

[jiaweitao001]

Hi @jiaweitao001 - There's no description on the PR?

Also, we do not expose kind apart from in exceptional circumstances, and typically need to expose the different kind values as separate resources due to functional or schema incompatibilities that emerge over time. Is there any meaningful difference to these kind values?

Hi @jackofallops , I'll add some details in the description. According to the doc, there's a difference on optimization under the hood https://docs.azure.cn/en-us/container-apps/functions-overview#deployment-and-setup . We have a few incoming request for this feature as well.

[pedromaca]

Could we get an update on this please?

[PrestonR]

@jackofallops for what it's worth from my perspective, i agree with a separate resource e.g. container_app_function ... it looks like azure rolled the offering as a distinct kind under this API and that it's considered an "optimized form for functions" of the containers API. it would probably simplify the allowed options specifically for container functions instead of cluttering the existing logic for the container_app resource

[sreallymatt]

As mentioned in our contributing guidelines, we generally don't expose kind or similar discriminator type properties in resources (there are some legacy exceptions in the provider, but it's not the norm)

To support this functionality, please add a new resource.

Closing for now.