New Resource: `azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association` by neil-yechenwei · Pull Request #31321 · hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm

neil-yechenwei · 2025-12-09T04:37:13Z

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 is to support new association resource azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association for new feature publicIpAddressesV6. This PR depends on #31197. Once PR 31197 is merged, please don't merge this PR since I will rebase the code.

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)

--- PASS: TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_basic (213.37s)
--- PASS: TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_requiresImport (189.84s)

Change Log

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

New Resource: azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association

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

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.

…ort for new SKU StandardV2

teowa

Hi @neil-yechenwei, thank you for submitting the PR. I’ve added some comments inline. Also, the PR might need to be rebased onto the main branch once #31197 is merged.

teowa · 2025-12-09T05:26:32Z

+		"nat_gateway_id": {
+			Type:         pluginsdk.TypeString,
+			Required:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,
+			ValidateFunc: natgateways.ValidateNatGatewayID,
+		},
+
+		"public_ip_address_id": {
+			Type:         pluginsdk.TypeString,
+			Required:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,
+			ValidateFunc: commonids.ValidatePublicIPAddressID,
+		},


Suggested change

"nat_gateway_id": {

Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,

Required: true,

ForceNew: true,

ValidateFunc: natgateways.ValidateNatGatewayID,

},

"public_ip_address_id": {

Type: pluginsdk.TypeString,

Required: true,

ForceNew: true,

ValidateFunc: commonids.ValidatePublicIPAddressID,

},

"nat_gateway_id": commonschema.ResourceIDReferenceRequiredForceNew(&natgateways.NatGatewayId{}),

"public_ip_address_id": commonschema.ResourceIDReferenceRequiredForceNew(&commonids.PublicIPAddressId{}),

teowa · 2025-12-09T06:29:25Z

+			natGateway, err := client.Get(ctx, *natGatewayId, natgateways.DefaultGetOperationOptions())
+			if err != nil {
+				if response.WasNotFound(natGateway.HttpResponse) {
+					return fmt.Errorf("%s was not found", natGatewayId)


Pointers used in fmt.Errorf() should be dereferenced, please fix similar issues in the _resource file.

Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("%s was not found", natGatewayId)

return fmt.Errorf("%s was not found", *natGatewayId)

neil-yechenwei · 2025-12-09T07:05:00Z

@teowa , thanks for the comments. I updated PR. Please take another review. Below is the latest test result.

--- PASS: TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_basic (202.84s)
--- PASS: TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_requiresImport (196.31s)

teowa · 2025-12-09T23:29:03Z

Thanks @neil-yechenwei , LGTM!

ms-henglu · 2025-12-10T05:59:09Z

+				return err
+			}
+
+			locks.ByName(natGatewayId.NatGatewayName, natGatewayResourceName)


Do we need to lock by the nat gateway's ID? Will there be two gateways in different resource group but same name?

Updated. API allows to create two gateways with same name in different resource groups.

ms-henglu · 2025-12-10T06:01:30Z

+				if props := model.Properties; props != nil {
+					publicIpAddressesV6 := make([]natgateways.SubResource, 0)
+
+					if publicIPAddressesV6 := props.PublicIPAddressesV6; publicIPAddressesV6 != nil {


publicIPAddressesV6 is assigned (using :=) to props.PublicIPAddressesV6 in this if-condition, the modifications to publicIPAddressesV6 stays in the if-condition. Consider using another variable name?

ms-henglu · 2025-12-10T06:03:22Z

+
+type NatGatewayPublicIpV6AssociationResource struct{}
+
+func TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_basic(t *testing.T) {


Please add another test to show verify if multiple associations can work together.

teowa · 2026-04-08T04:29:01Z

Hi @ms-zhenhua , thanks for reviewing this, I have updated the code, please kindly take another look.

ms-zhenhua

LGTM~

teowa · 2026-04-08T23:39:50Z

wuxu92

Thanks for the updates on this PR! I left some comments while it looks good overall. we are good to go once you addressed these comments.

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T00:06:43Z

+	"github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/internal/tf/pluginsdk"
+)
+
+type NatGatewayPublicIpV6AssociationResource struct{}


we should use IPv6 or ipv6, althought the SDK generated with IPAddressV6, the standard spelling is a lowercased v6 as IPv6. we should rename all other words in this PR too.

Suggested change

type NatGatewayPublicIpV6AssociationResource struct{}

type NatGatewayPublicIPv6AssociationResource struct{}

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T00:31:42Z

+			if model := natGateway.Model; model != nil {
+				if props := model.Properties; props != nil {
+					if props.PublicIPAddressesV6 == nil {
+						return metadata.MarkAsGone(id)
+					}
+
+					publicIPAddressFound := false
+					for _, pip := range *props.PublicIPAddressesV6 {
+						if pip.Id == nil {
+							continue
+						}
+
+						if strings.EqualFold(*pip.Id, id.Second.ID()) {
+							publicIPAddressFound = true
+							break
+						}
+					}
+
+					if !publicIPAddressFound {
+						return metadata.MarkAsGone(id)
+					}
+				}
+			}
+


we need to handle if model or props is nil as well, and we can make it clear:

Suggested change

if model := natGateway.Model; model != nil {

if props := model.Properties; props != nil {

if props.PublicIPAddressesV6 == nil {

return metadata.MarkAsGone(id)

}

publicIPAddressFound := false

for _, pip := range *props.PublicIPAddressesV6 {

if pip.Id == nil {

continue

}

if strings.EqualFold(*pip.Id, id.Second.ID()) {

publicIPAddressFound = true

break

}

}

if !publicIPAddressFound {

return metadata.MarkAsGone(id)

}

}

}

if natGateway.Model == nil || natGateway.Model.Properties == nil {

return fmt.Errorf("retrieving %s: `model` or `properties` was nil", id)

}

publicIPAddressFound := false

for _, pip := range pointer.From(model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6) {

if strings.EqualFold(pointer.From(pip.Id), id.Second.ID()) {

publicIPAddressFound = true

break

}

}

if !publicIPAddressFound {

return metadata.MarkAsGone(id)

}

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T00:48:33Z

+	return map[string]*pluginsdk.Schema{
+		"nat_gateway_id": commonschema.ResourceIDReferenceRequiredForceNew(&natgateways.NatGatewayId{}),
+
+		"public_ip_address_id": commonschema.ResourceIDReferenceRequiredForceNew(&commonids.PublicIPAddressId{}),


Can we add a validator in CustomizeDiff to ensure the ID is an IPv6 address, assuming the Get API is a lightweight call? That way we’ll catch the error during the plan stage if an IPv4 ID is supplied.

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T00:54:24Z

+			locks.ByID(natGatewayId.ID())
+			defer locks.UnlockByID(natGatewayId.ID())


we need to update the locks of azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_prefix_association and azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_association to use ID instead locks.ByName if we use ID here.

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T00:57:12Z

+}
+
+func (r NatGatewayPublicIpV6AssociationResource) ResourceType() string {
+	return "azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association"


should it be no breaks in ipv6?

Suggested change

return "azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association"

return "azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ipv6_association"

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T01:08:10Z

+			publicIpAddressesV6 := make([]natgateways.SubResource, 0)
+
+			if v := natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6; v != nil {
+				for _, existingPublicIPAddress := range *v {
+					if existingPublicIPAddress.Id == nil {
+						continue
+					}
+
+					if strings.EqualFold(*existingPublicIPAddress.Id, publicIpAddressId.ID()) {
+						return metadata.ResourceRequiresImport(r.ResourceType(), id)
+					}
+
+					publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, existingPublicIPAddress)
+				}
+			}
+
+			publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, natgateways.SubResource{
+				Id: pointer.To(state.PublicIpAddressId),
+			})
+			natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6 = pointer.To(publicIpAddressesV6)


it seems we don't need to copy the list to publicIpAddressesV6?

Suggested change

publicIpAddressesV6 := make([]natgateways.SubResource, 0)

if v := natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6; v != nil {

for _, existingPublicIPAddress := range *v {

if existingPublicIPAddress.Id == nil {

continue

}

if strings.EqualFold(*existingPublicIPAddress.Id, publicIpAddressId.ID()) {

return metadata.ResourceRequiresImport(r.ResourceType(), id)

}

publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, existingPublicIPAddress)

}

}

publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, natgateways.SubResource{

Id: pointer.To(state.PublicIpAddressId),

})

natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6 = pointer.To(publicIpAddressesV6)

existingIPs := pointer.From(natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6)

for _, existingPublicIPAddress := range existingIPs {

if strings.EqualFold(pointer.From(existingPublicIPAddress.Id), publicIpAddressId.ID()) {

return metadata.ResourceRequiresImport(r.ResourceType(), id)

}

}

publicIPAddressesV6 := append(existingIPs, natgateways.SubResource{

Id: pointer.To(state.PublicIpAddressId),

})

natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6 = pointer.To(publicIPAddressesV6)

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T01:11:50Z

+			if v := natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6; v != nil {
+				for _, publicIPAddress := range *v {
+					if publicIPAddress.Id == nil {
+						continue
+					}
+
+					if !strings.EqualFold(*publicIPAddress.Id, id.Second.ID()) {
+						publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, publicIPAddress)
+					}
+				}
+			}


Suggested change

if v := natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6; v != nil {

for _, publicIPAddress := range *v {

if publicIPAddress.Id == nil {

continue

}

if !strings.EqualFold(*publicIPAddress.Id, id.Second.ID()) {

publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, publicIPAddress)

}

}

}

need2Delete := false

for _, publicIPAddress := range pointer.From(natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6) {

if !strings.EqualFold(pointer.From(publicIPAddress.Id), id.Second.ID()) {

publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, publicIPAddress)

} else {

need2Delete = true

}

}

// if addresss already not exists in gateway, then we don't need to call the update

if !need2Delete {

// add optional logging here

return nil

}

teowa · 2026-04-09T04:40:41Z

Hi @wuxu92 , thanks for reviewing this! I've updated the code, please take another look.

wuxu92

Thanks @teowa for the updates. This is good enough to me. I just noticed that the public_ip_address_id usually references to a public ip resource's id field, which means it is unknown in plan stage but still need to the apply stage to known to value. but the CustomizeDiff still has value if the public ip resource is under provision already. I approved this PR and wait HC's review on this.

also please update the PR title to the new resource name.

wuxu92 · 2026-04-09T05:20:29Z

+type NatGatewayPublicIPv6AssociationResource struct{}
+
+var (
+	_ sdk.Resource                  = NatGatewayPublicIPv6AssociationResource{}


Suggested change

_ sdk.Resource = NatGatewayPublicIPv6AssociationResource{}

sreallymatt · 2026-04-13T18:02:47Z

Is being discussed internally with @wuxu92

“neil-yechenwei” added 8 commits November 26, 2025 11:55

azurerm_nat_gateway/azurerm_public_ip/azurerm_public_ip_prefix - supp…

5e0cac4

…ort for new SKU StandardV2

update md file

8669186

update md

1ca4e10

update md file

c1dcf3c

Add CustomizeDiff Validtor for new sku StandardV2

e882770

update tc

9cd164f

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into networkskuv2

f5906bd

New Resource: azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association

bc49239

neil-yechenwei requested review from a team, WodansSon and magodo as code owners December 9, 2025 04:37

neil-yechenwei marked this pull request as draft December 9, 2025 04:37

github-actions bot added documentation service/network size/XL labels Dec 9, 2025

teowa reviewed Dec 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Dec 9, 2025

update style

15a2879

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Dec 9, 2025

neil-yechenwei requested a review from teowa December 9, 2025 06:59

update pointer

05d6f01

ms-henglu suggested changes Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot assigned ms-henglu Dec 10, 2025

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Dec 10, 2025

update per comments

d180c27

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Dec 11, 2025

update per comments

e425421

neil-yechenwei requested a review from ms-henglu December 11, 2025 00:09

github-actions bot assigned ms-zhenhua Apr 8, 2026

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Apr 8, 2026

fix

1c92a21

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Apr 8, 2026

teowa removed the waiting-response label Apr 8, 2026

ms-zhenhua approved these changes Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix

33b8a33

WodansSon marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2026 08:32

wuxu92 reviewed Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Apr 9, 2026

wuxu92 mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2026

New Resource: azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_prefix_v6_association #31325

Closed

15 tasks

fix

c96c768

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Apr 9, 2026

fix lint

6e95e5e

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Apr 9, 2026

wuxu92 approved these changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix

bd105af

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Apr 9, 2026

fix

b5b83b1

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Apr 9, 2026

sreallymatt added the waiting-response label Apr 13, 2026

mybayern1974 unassigned ms-zhenhua and ms-henglu Apr 15, 2026

teowa mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2026

azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_association - support associating IPv6 Public IP #32176

Open

15 tasks

	return fmt.Errorf("%s was not found", natGatewayId)
	return fmt.Errorf("%s was not found", *natGatewayId)


		type NatGatewayPublicIpV6AssociationResource struct{}

		func TestAccNatGatewayPublicIpV6Association_basic(t *testing.T) {

		locks.ByID(natGatewayId.ID())
		defer locks.UnlockByID(natGatewayId.ID())

	return "azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ip_v6_association"
	return "azurerm_nat_gateway_public_ipv6_association"

-			if v := natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6; v != nil {
-				for _, publicIPAddress := range *v {
-					if publicIPAddress.Id == nil {
-						continue
-					}
-					if !strings.EqualFold(*publicIPAddress.Id, id.Second.ID()) {
-						publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, publicIPAddress)
-					}
-				}
-			}
+			need2Delete := false
+			for _, publicIPAddress := range pointer.From(natGateway.Model.Properties.PublicIPAddressesV6) {
+				if !strings.EqualFold(pointer.From(publicIPAddress.Id), id.Second.ID()) {
+					publicIpAddressesV6 = append(publicIpAddressesV6, publicIPAddress)
+				} else {
+					need2Delete = true
+				}
+			}
+			// if addresss already not exists in gateway, then we don't need to call the update
+			if !need2Delete {
+				// add optional logging here
+				return nil
+			}

Conversation

neil-yechenwei commented Dec 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Community Note

Description

PR Checklist

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

Testing

Change Log

Related Issue(s)

AI Assistance Disclosure

Rollback Plan

Changes to Security Controls

Uh oh!

teowa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-yechenwei commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

teowa commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-yechenwei Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

teowa commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

ms-zhenhua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

teowa commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

wuxu92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wuxu92 Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wuxu92 Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

neil-yechenwei commented Dec 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

neil-yechenwei Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

wuxu92 Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

wuxu92 Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

wuxu92 Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

wuxu92 left a comment •

edited

Loading

sreallymatt commented Apr 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading