new resource `azurerm_kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile` by ms-henglu · Pull Request #31941 · hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm

ms-henglu · 2026-03-12T02:41:11Z

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 adds a new resource: "azurerm_kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile"

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 #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.

liuwuliuyun

Left some comments~ Thanks

liuwuliuyun · 2026-03-13T05:37:58Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+				return fmt.Errorf("retrieving existing %s: %+v", *id, err)
+			}
+			if existing.Model == nil {
+				return fmt.Errorf("retrieving existing %s: properties was nil", *id)


Issue: The check is on existing.Model == nil, but the error message says "properties was nil". Per error handling standards, the message should accurately describe what was nil.
Suggested fix: Change to "retrieving existing %s: model was nil"

liuwuliuyun · 2026-03-13T05:41:14Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+		},
+
+		"disabled": {
+			Optional: true,


Issue: The disabled field is defined in the schema and handled in Create(), Read(), and Update(), but none of the test configurations (basic, complete, update) set disabled. This means the field has zero test coverage. Per testing guidelines, updatable fields should be exercised in the complete and/or update test configs.
Suggested fix: Add disabled = true to the complete config and disabled = false (or remove it) in the update config, so the HasChange("disabled") path is also tested.

Plus, the name of the field could also need reconsideration based on https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm/blob/main/contributing/topics/reference-naming.md#boolean-property-naming-conventions

liuwuliuyun · 2026-03-13T05:41:45Z

website/docs/r/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile.html.markdown

+
+* `update_strategy_id` - (Optional) The ID of the Fleet Update Strategy to use for this auto upgrade profile. Changing this forces a new Kubernetes Fleet Auto Upgrade Profile to be created.
+
+* `disabled` - (Optional) Whether the auto upgrade profile is disabled.


Issue: Per documentation guidelines, Optional arguments should be listed in alphabetical order. Current order: node_image_selection_type, update_strategy_id, disabled. Should be: disabled, node_image_selection_type, update_strategy_id.
Suggested fix: Reorder to alphabetical.

Issue: Per documentation guidelines, Optional boolean fields should document default behavior. Users need to know what happens whendisabledis not set — is the profile enabled by default?

Suggested fix: Add default info, e.g.,Whether the auto upgrade profile is disabled. Defaults to false.` (if that matches the API behavior).

liuwuliuyun · 2026-03-13T05:43:00Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+
+		"update_strategy_id": {
+			Optional:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,


Issue: update_strategy_id is marked ForceNew: true, meaning any change to it will destroy and recreate the resource. The SDK model has UpdateStrategyId *string with json:"updateStrategyId,omitempty", suggesting it's a mutable field in the API. If the Azure API allows updating this field via PUT/CreateOrUpdate without recreation, ForceNew is unnecessarily destructive for users. We might need to verify the API actually requires recreation when changing the update strategy.

ms-zhenhua

Hi @ms-henglu ,

Thanks for this PR - I've taken a look through and left some comments inline.

ms-zhenhua · 2026-03-13T07:26:53Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+			Optional:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,
+			Type:         pluginsdk.TypeString,
+			ValidateFunc: fleetupdatestrategies.ValidateUpdateStrategyID,


shall we use commonschema.ResourceIDReferenceOptionalForceNew(&fleetupdatestrategies.UpdateStrategyId{}) instead?

website/docs/r/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile.html.markdown

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource_test.go

ms-zhenhua · 2026-03-13T07:32:57Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource_test.go

+provider "azurerm" {
+  features {}
+}


provider block should be explicitly defined in each testcase

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

ms-zhenhua · 2026-03-13T07:40:45Z

website/docs/r/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile.html.markdown

+
+* `update_strategy_id` - (Optional) The ID of the Fleet Update Strategy to use for this auto upgrade profile. Changing this forces a new Kubernetes Fleet Auto Upgrade Profile to be created.
+
+* `disabled` - (Optional) Whether the auto upgrade profile is disabled.


Booleans named disableSomething in the API should be flipped and exposed as something_enabled in the provider. (ref)

Co-authored-by: Zhenhua Hu <zhhu@microsoft.com>

…down Co-authored-by: Zhenhua Hu <zhhu@microsoft.com>

ms-zhenhua

2 more comments left. Please help confirm.

ms-zhenhua · 2026-03-18T08:06:17Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+				}
+			}
+
+			payload.Properties.UpdateStrategyId = config.UpdateStrategyId


Could this assignment of UpdateStrategyId be done when initializing payload at line 116?

ms-zhenhua · 2026-03-18T08:18:41Z

internal/services/containers/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile_resource.go

+	NodeImageSelectionType   *string `tfschema:"node_image_selection_type"`
+	UpdateStrategyId         *string `tfschema:"update_strategy_id"`
+	Enabled                  *bool   `tfschema:"enabled"`


why do you define these 3 properties as pointer?

I change the Enabled to bool, the other two doesn't have a default value, so I keep them as pointers, should I fix them?

I change the Enabled to bool, the other two doesn't have a default value, so I keep them as pointers, should I fix them?

- Change Enabled model field from *bool to bool (has Default: true) - Move UpdateStrategyId and Disabled into payload initialization in Create - Simplify Update method for non-pointer Enabled

- Change NodeImageSelectionType and UpdateStrategyId from *string to string - Update Create, Read, and Update methods to use pointer.To/pointer.From for SDK field conversion

liuwuliuyun

LGTM now, thanks~

ms-zhenhua

LGTM~

ms-henglu added 2 commits March 11, 2026 14:28

go mod vendor

97d8f49

new resource azurerm_kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile

c3d262b

ms-henglu requested review from a team, WodansSon and magodo as code owners March 12, 2026 02:41

github-actions bot added ai-assisted documentation dependencies size/XL waiting-response and removed ai-assisted labels Mar 12, 2026

make fmt

97dde20

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Mar 12, 2026

make generate

c0adedc

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Mar 12, 2026

liuwuliuyun reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Mar 13, 2026

ms-zhenhua suggested changes Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot assigned ms-zhenhua Mar 13, 2026

Apply suggestions from code review

808b813

Co-authored-by: Zhenhua Hu <zhhu@microsoft.com>

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Mar 17, 2026

Update website/docs/r/kubernetes_fleet_auto_upgrade_profile.html.mark…

9e9b4ad

…down Co-authored-by: Zhenhua Hu <zhhu@microsoft.com>

github-actions bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Mar 17, 2026

Apply suggestions from code review

0c0908b

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Mar 17, 2026

ms-henglu requested a review from liuwuliuyun March 17, 2026 04:44

ms-henglu requested a review from ms-zhenhua March 17, 2026 04:44

ms-zhenhua suggested changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the waiting-response label Mar 18, 2026

ENHANCEMENT: address review comments for PR hashicorp#31941

9b11313

- Change Enabled model field from *bool to bool (has Default: true) - Move UpdateStrategyId and Disabled into payload initialization in Create - Simplify Update method for non-pointer Enabled

github-actions bot removed the waiting-response label Mar 19, 2026

ENHANCEMENT: remove pointer types from model fields

98dfa54

- Change NodeImageSelectionType and UpdateStrategyId from *string to string - Update Create, Read, and Update methods to use pointer.To/pointer.From for SDK field conversion

rcskosir added the new-resource label Mar 19, 2026

liuwuliuyun approved these changes Mar 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

ms-henglu requested a review from ms-zhenhua March 27, 2026 02:15

ms-zhenhua approved these changes Mar 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into branch-250311-fleet-auto-upgrade-profile

351cd31

mybayern1974 unassigned ms-zhenhua Mar 30, 2026


		* `update_strategy_id` - (Optional) The ID of the Fleet Update Strategy to use for this auto upgrade profile. Changing this forces a new Kubernetes Fleet Auto Upgrade Profile to be created.

		* `disabled` - (Optional) Whether the auto upgrade profile is disabled.

Conversation

ms-henglu commented Mar 12, 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!

liuwuliuyun 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ms-zhenhua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ms-zhenhua 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liuwuliuyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ms-zhenhua left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

ms-henglu commented Mar 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading