Add StateReason to NCC Spoke

[amanMahendroo]

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

See Write release notes for guidance.

networkconnectivity: added `state_reason` field to `spoke` resource

[github-actions]

Hello! I am a robot. Tests will require approval from a repository maintainer to run. Googlers: see go/terraform-auto-test-runs to set up automatic test runs.

@ScottSuarez, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to review your changes. If you have not received review feedback within 2 business days, please leave a comment on this PR asking them to take a look.

You can help make sure that review is quick by doing a self-review and by running impacted tests locally.

[modular-magician]

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Diff report

Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

google provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))
google-beta provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))

Missing doc report (experimental)

The following resources have fields missing in documents.

• google_network_connectivity_spoke
  • Expected Document Path: /website/docs/r/network_connectivity_spoke.html.markdown
  • Fields: [state_reason]

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 36
Passed tests: 35
Skipped tests: 1
Affected tests: 0

Click here to see the affected service packages

• networkconnectivity

🟢 All tests passed!

View the build log

[modular-magician]

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Diff report

Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

google provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))
google-beta provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))

Missing doc report (experimental)

The following resources have fields missing in documents.

• google_network_connectivity_spoke
  • Expected Document Path: /website/docs/r/network_connectivity_spoke.html.markdown
  • Fields: [state_reason]

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 37
Passed tests: 36
Skipped tests: 1
Affected tests: 0

Click here to see the affected service packages

• networkconnectivity

🟢 All tests passed!

View the build log

[shuyama1]

rerun missing doc detector
/gcbrun

[modular-magician]

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Diff report

Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

google provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))
google-beta provider: Diff ( 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+))

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 37
Passed tests: 36
Skipped tests: 1
Affected tests: 0

Click here to see the affected service packages

• networkconnectivity

🟢 All tests passed!

View the build log

[ScottSuarez]

Could you add a test for this field or add it to an existing test? If not, why not?

[amanMahendroo]

@ScottSuarez This is an output only field which is populated by a different API that isn't supported on Terraform and as such can't be added in a create or update test. The StateReason array would otherwise remain empty unless we use this API. I can't think of a reasonable test for this field since its only purpose is to be read by user in a Get request (other than asserting that it's an empty array upon resource creation, but I don't know of a way to do that in a test).

[ScottSuarez]

The public API documentation suggests that stateReason does not exist.

Perhaps reason is what you are looking for?

[ScottSuarez]

@ScottSuarez This is an output only field which is populated by a different API that isn't supported on Terraform and as such can't be added in a create or update test. The StateReason array would otherwise remain empty unless we use this API. I can't think of a reasonable test for this field since its only purpose is to be read by user in a Get request (other than asserting that it's an empty array upon resource creation, but I don't know of a way to do that in a test).

I see, I think I am okay with this, but have issue with how we are using vs what is documented publicly on the docs. Given that we have no tests I would still like some form of validation that this field works. Local testing or instructions on how to verify functionality.