addition of team sync support

[anGie44]

Addition of team_sync_groups data source and team_sync_group_mapping resource to address GitHub's new Team Sync capabilities as discussed in issue: https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-github/issues/293

[jopedros]

Hi @anGie44 I'm not a contributor in this provider, but should not you create also the documentation pages in /website/docs/r|d ?

Thanks!

[anGie44]

ah yes great catch @jopedros, thank you! i'll make the addition.

[megan07]

Looks really good! A few comments, but it's a great first PR! Nice work!

[megan07]

Great changes! Looks good, thanks!

[megan07]

LGTM! Great work!

[anGie44]

@megan07 I was finally able to test the data/resource w/my test github enterprise cloud org configured w/SAML and Azure AD. The changes I pushed up reflect some bugs I found but the API calls are still error prone -- filed the issue/PR here: google/go-github#1484

In the meantime, the tests catch the 404 errors/missing state:

make testacc TEST=./github TESTARGS='-run=TestAccGithubOrganizationTeam'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./github -v -run=TestAccGithubOrganizationTeam -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccGithubOrganizationTeamSyncGroupsDataSource_existing
=== PAUSE TestAccGithubOrganizationTeamSyncGroupsDataSource_existing
=== CONT  TestAccGithubOrganizationTeamSyncGroupsDataSource_existing
--- PASS: TestAccGithubOrganizationTeamSyncGroupsDataSource_existing (4.10s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-github/github 4.503s

make testacc TEST=./github TESTARGS='-run=TestAccGithubTeamSync'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./github -v -run=TestAccGithubTeamSync -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_basic
=== RUN   TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_empty
=== PAUSE TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_empty
=== CONT  TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_basic
=== CONT  TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_empty
--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_basic (5.66s)
--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_empty (6.15s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-github/github 6.544s

[gmlewis]

@anGie44 - https://github.com/google/go-github/releases/tag/v31.0.0 has been released, as requested. Thank you for your contributions! They are greatly appreciated!

[anGie44]

Note: these changes (and subsequent changes to handle API calls) will be contingent on upgrade to go-github v31.0.0 with https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-github/pull/424

[jlpedrosa]

Hi @megan07

Is this PR ready to be merged? I don't know if you have any ETA for the merge, we would probably go with a custom build from master when this patch is merged.

[anGie44]

hi @jlpedrosa - thanks for following up on this PR! the changes still depend on an upgrade to the provider's go-github library (upgrade submitted in PR #424). once that change is in, the work here can be safely merged and use the updated API methods that the go-github v31.0.0 will support for team-sync usage. currently this is marked for the v.2.8.0 milestone but we can discuss here on prioritizing this PR (and #424) if possible with @jcudit :)

[anGie44]

Output of acceptance testing (with enterprise account):

--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_empty (12.61s)
--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_basic (17.53s)
--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_disappears (18.78s)
--- PASS: TestAccGithubTeamSyncGroupMapping_update (30.68s)
--- PASS: TestAccGithubOrganizationTeamSyncGroupsDataSource_existing (3.39s)

[anGie44]

Hi @jlpedrosa 👋, please find the changes now in master. Let us know if you have any further questions or if we can help in any way. thanks in advance!

[jlpedrosa]

Hi @anGie44

Thanks for the follow up! As soon as it is released we will incorporate it in out project. Will let you know if there's any feedback we can give.

[Jorge-Rodriguez]

@anGie44 I know this has been long part of the provider, but what was the reasoning for this? At first sight, it doesn't seem like an update to the groups should require a new resource. Why wasn't in-place updating possible?