Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature]: Automating the authentication for azure_consent_url for Snowflake Storage Integration (Blob) with terraform #3082

Open
1 task
sfc-gh-amdeshpande opened this issue Sep 17, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
feature-request Used to mark issues with provider's missing functionalities

Comments

@sfc-gh-amdeshpande
Copy link

Use Cases or Problem Statement

Currently, when creating storage integration on Snowflake for Azure blob storage, there is a manual intervention required to "Accept" the connection with azure_consent_url. The ask is to add a feature in terraform to automate this step, so as to avoid manual intervention of any kind.
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/Snowflake-Labs/snowflake/latest/docs/resources/storage_integration#azure_consent_url

Category

category:resource

Object type(s)

resource:storage_integration

Proposal

Possibly add another parameter (boolean) which can be default value as 'accept' which terraform can use for accepting the grants with azure_consent_url.

How much impact is this issue causing?

Medium

Additional Information

No response

Would you like to implement a fix?

  • Yeah, I'll take it 😎
@sfc-gh-amdeshpande sfc-gh-amdeshpande added the feature-request Used to mark issues with provider's missing functionalities label Sep 17, 2024
@sfc-gh-jmichalak
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @sfc-gh-amdeshpande 👋

Storage integration is a resource that will be redesigned (see the roadmap). We'll examine this during the rework. We welcome testing and implementation on the provider side by following our contribution guide.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request Used to mark issues with provider's missing functionalities
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants