`azurerm_kubernetes_cluster` - add `policy` property to `network_profile.advanced_networking` block by nddq · Pull Request #31506 · hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm

nddq · 2026-01-14T19:52:45Z

The advanced_networking block currently exposes observability_enabled and
security_enabled, but not the advanced network policy mode that Advanced
Container Networking Services (ACNS) security applies — enabling security
always yields the service default, with no way to select L7 policy enforcement
or disable policy enforcement from Terraform.

This PR adds the policy property to the network_profile.advanced_networking
block, mapping to the AdvancedNetworkingSecurity.AdvancedNetworkPolicies
field on the managedclusters API.

The API treats advancedNetworkPolicies as a tri-state field with a
service-side default: when security_enabled is true and the field is
unset, the service defaults it to FQDN; when security is disabled, the
service normalizes it to None. The schema models this directly:

Schema: policy is Optional + Computed with possible values FQDN,
L7 and None. When omitted, the service-applied value flows into state,
so clusters that already have security_enabled = true keep their current
policy with no diff on provider upgrade. None is exposed as an explicit
value because omission cannot express it: an unset policy on a
security-enabled cluster is defaulted by the API to FQDN, so disabling
enforcement requires policy = "None".
Validation: FQDN and L7 can only be configured when
security_enabled is true. The check applies only when policy is
explicitly set in the configuration (via GetRawConfig), so a Computed
value carried over from state does not block disabling security — the
provider sends None in that case, matching the API's own normalization.
L7 cannot be combined with a service_mesh_profile in Istio mode;
FQDN with Istio is allowed, matching the API.
Disable paths: when security_enabled is false or the
advanced_networking block is removed entirely, an explicit None is sent
so a previously configured policy is reset rather than left for the API to
retain.
Tests: acceptance coverage for the service-side FQDN default, updating
FQDN → L7, omitting policy (current value is retained), removing the
advanced_networking block entirely, re-adding it, explicitly disabling
with None, and the negative cases (L7 without security_enabled, L7
with Istio).
Documentation: the policy argument and its preconditions added to the
azurerm_kubernetes_cluster documentation.

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

See above.

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)

Validated two ways against a dev-override build of the provider:

Plan-time matrix (10 cases): FQDN/L7/None plan cleanly with security
enabled; explicit None is accepted with security disabled; explicit L7
without security_enabled is rejected; L7 with Istio is rejected while
FQDN with Istio plans cleanly; security_enabled = true with a non-cilium
data plane is still rejected; invalid values are rejected by schema validation
listing ["FQDN" "L7" "None"].

Apply-time lifecycle against the live API (2025-10-01), mirroring the
TestAccKubernetesCluster_advancedNetworkingPolicies steps, with
TF_LOG=DEBUG confirming the request and response bodies at each step:

Step	Observed
create with `security_enabled = true`, `policy` omitted	request omits `advancedNetworkPolicies`; API defaults it to `FQDN`; state = `FQDN`
plan with the same config	empty — no drift from the Computed value
`policy = "L7"`	request and response carry `L7`; state = `L7`
plan with `policy` omitted	empty — current value retained
`security_enabled = false` with computed `L7` in state	no validation error; request sends `None`; state = `None`
`security_enabled = true` again	`None` retained — the state value is sent explicitly, so the API default does not re-fire
`advanced_networking` block removed	disable request carries an explicit `advancedNetworkPolicies: None`; block removed from state
block re-added with `policy = "FQDN"`	state = `FQDN`

Change Log

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

azurerm_kubernetes_cluster - support for the policy property in the network_profile.advanced_networking block [azurerm_kubernetes_cluster - add policy property to network_profile.advanced_networking block #31506]

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)

N/A

AI Assistance Disclosure

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

AI was used for code generation and test authoring; all changes were reviewed before submission.

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.

nddq · 2026-01-21T22:47:49Z

@rcskosir hello, when can I expect to get a review for this PR? Thanks!

ms-henglu · 2026-02-26T01:13:56Z

Hi @nddq ,

Normally we need to make the SDK upgrade in a separate PR, and I opened this PR to update the SDK to 2025-10-01: #31401

I think you can rebase the branch once above PR is merged.

ms-henglu · 2026-03-06T01:54:16Z

Hi @nddq ,

The PR is merged, you can rebase to main branch. I'm happy to take over this task if you're occupied, let me know if you need any help.

nddq · 2026-03-06T15:16:10Z

@ms-henglu Thanks! I have rebased this branch onto latest main

ms-henglu

Hi @nddq , it mostly LGTM, I just have minor comments, please check.

sf-msft · 2026-04-08T15:34:43Z

@magodo @WodansSon Any chance y'all can take a pass?

wuxu92

Thanks for the contribution! I left some comments otherwise look good!

sf-msft · 2026-04-30T23:35:18Z

@sreallymatt any chance of queuing for reviews from hashicorp?

wuxu92 · 2026-05-05T07:22:02Z

hi @nddq please take a looks at the failed CI actions

wuxu92

LGTM, Thanks!

nddq · 2026-05-20T15:14:38Z

Any updates for this?

catriona-m

Thanks for working on this @nddq - I left a couple of comments inline but otherwise this is looking good. Thanks!

sf-msft · 2026-06-04T15:44:01Z

@catriona-m one more nudge for a review

sf-msft · 2026-06-15T21:26:41Z

@catriona-m Ping again to avoid PR going stale

catriona-m

Hi @nddq I had another look at this and left a couple of comments on adding more test steps around removing/re-adding policy and also removing the advanced_networking entirely. Once that is addressed and the tests are passing, I think this should be good to go! Thanks!

catriona-m · 2026-06-25T10:11:54Z

+				check.That(data.ResourceName).ExistsInAzure(r),
+			),
+		},
+		data.ImportStep(),


could we add more steps to this test where we omit the policy field entirely and then add it again?

catriona-m · 2026-06-25T10:36:06Z

+	}
+	security := &managedclusters.AdvancedNetworkingSecurity{
+		Enabled:                 pointer.To(securityEnabled),
+		AdvancedNetworkPolicies: pointer.To(advancedNetworkPolicies),


policy currently gets set to None here if the policy property is omitted when the block is present in the config, but when the advanced_networking block is removed entirely, the other properties in the block are set to false explicitly and policy is nil. We should update the tests to cover this case and investigate if leaving it nil or set to None is correct here

…ile.advanced_networking` block This change adds support for the `policy` property within the `network_profile.advanced_networking` block for Azure Kubernetes Service clusters. The property maps to the Azure SDK's `AdvancedNetworkingSecurity.AdvancedNetworkPolicies` field. Changes: - Add `policy` field with valid values `FQDN`, `L7` and `None` - The field is Optional and Computed: the API defaults an unset policy to `FQDN` when `security_enabled` is `true`, so the server-applied value is reflected in state, and `None` is exposed as the explicit value to disable advanced network policy enforcement - Add plan-time validation: `FQDN` and `L7` can only be configured when `security_enabled` is `true`, and `L7` cannot be combined with a service mesh profile in `Istio` mode - Send an explicit `None` when security is disabled or the `advanced_networking` block is removed, so a previously configured policy is reset rather than left for the API to retain - Add acceptance tests covering the API-side `FQDN` default, updating the policy, omitting it (value is retained), removing the `advanced_networking` block, re-adding it, and explicitly disabling with `None` - Update documentation Signed-off-by: Quang Nguyen <nguyenquang@microsoft.com>

nddq requested review from a team, WodansSon and magodo as code owners January 14, 2026 19:52

github-actions Bot added documentation dependencies service/machine-learning size/L labels Jan 14, 2026

rcskosir added the service/kubernetes-cluster label Jan 15, 2026

github-actions Bot added the enhancement label Jan 15, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 1bfd4af to 7c36c51 Compare February 24, 2026 03:59

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch 2 times, most recently from 6dfbc10 to 6f3dcab Compare March 6, 2026 15:15

ms-henglu suggested changes Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 6f3dcab to 7195ebb Compare March 9, 2026 14:04

github-actions Bot added size/XL and removed size/L labels Mar 9, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 7195ebb to c3bb2bc Compare March 9, 2026 14:08

sf-msft mentioned this pull request Apr 14, 2026

Azure CNI Powered by Cilium L7/CRD Network Policy Azure/AKS#3797

Closed

wuxu92 reviewed Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from c3bb2bc to fe5a212 Compare April 21, 2026 13:14

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from fe5a212 to 34a4d1f Compare April 30, 2026 15:08

nddq changed the title ~~azurerm_kubernetes_cluster - add advanced_network_policies property to network_profile.advanced_networking block~~ azurerm_kubernetes_cluster - add policy property to network_profile.advanced_networking block Apr 30, 2026

github-actions Bot added the ai-assisted label Apr 30, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-response label May 5, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 34a4d1f to 8338dd7 Compare May 5, 2026 14:08

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label May 5, 2026

wuxu92 approved these changes May 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

catriona-m requested changes May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread internal/services/containers/kubernetes_cluster_resource.go Outdated

Comment thread website/docs/r/kubernetes_cluster.html.markdown Outdated

github-actions Bot assigned catriona-m May 22, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-response label May 22, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 8338dd7 to 9f85221 Compare May 28, 2026 22:11

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label May 28, 2026

nddq requested a review from catriona-m May 28, 2026 22:12

catriona-m requested changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

catriona-m added the waiting-response label Jul 2, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 9f85221 to 1d0d670 Compare July 9, 2026 16:24

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label Jul 9, 2026

nddq force-pushed the acnsL7Policy branch from 1d0d670 to 4330cb3 Compare July 9, 2026 17:47

Uh oh!

Conversation

nddq commented Jan 14, 2026 • 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!

nddq commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

ms-henglu commented Feb 26, 2026

Uh oh!

ms-henglu commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

nddq commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

ms-henglu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sf-msft commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

wuxu92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sf-msft commented Apr 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wuxu92 commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

wuxu92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nddq commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

catriona-m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sf-msft commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

sf-msft commented Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

catriona-m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

catriona-m Jun 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

catriona-m Jun 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

nddq commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sf-msft commented Apr 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading