New Resource: `azurerm_durable_task_scheduler`, `azurerm_durable_task_hub`, `azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy` & New Data Source: `azurerm_durable_task_scheduler` by stemaMSFT · Pull Request #32194 · hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm

stemaMSFT · 2026-04-16T23:37:48Z

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 support for the Azure Durable Task Framework service with the following new resources and data source:

New Resources:

azurerm_durable_task_scheduler — Manages a Durable Task Scheduler, supporting Consumption and Dedicated SKUs, IP allow lists, and tagging.
azurerm_durable_task_hub — Manages a Task Hub within a Durable Task Scheduler.
azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy — Manages the retention policy for a Durable Task Hub, configuring automatic purge of orchestration history.

New Data Source:

azurerm_durable_task_scheduler — Reads an existing Durable Task Scheduler resource.

All resources use hashicorp/go-azure-sdk typed resources with the durabletask/2025-04-01-preview API version.

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"

New Resource / Data Source

This PR introduces a new service package (durabletask) with three resources and one 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.

Testing

My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass.

Acceptance tests cover:

TestAccDurableTaskSchedulerResource_basic — Create/destroy lifecycle
TestAccDurableTaskSchedulerResource_requiresImport — Import detection
TestAccDurableTaskSchedulerResource_complete — All optional properties
TestAccDurableTaskSchedulerResource_update — In-place update (tags, IP allow list)
TestAccDurableTaskHubResource_basic — Create/destroy lifecycle
TestAccDurableTaskHubResource_requiresImport — Import detection
TestAccDurableTaskRetentionPolicyResource_basic — Create/destroy lifecycle
TestAccDurableTaskRetentionPolicyResource_complete — All retention policy properties
TestAccDurableTaskRetentionPolicyResource_update — In-place update
TestAccDurableTaskSchedulerDataSource_complete — Data source with full field validation

CI Results (commit `4e8c68f`)

All CI checks passing ✅

test — PASS (4860 tests, 78 skipped in 193.753s)

DONE 4860 tests, 78 skipped in 193.753s

Go 1.25.9, ubuntu runner. Acceptance tests skipped (requires TF_ACC — runs in TeamCity).

golint — PASS (golangci-lint v2.4.0, 25 active linters, 0 issues)

Active linters: [asasalint asciicheck bidichk decorder dupword durationcheck errcheck gocritic
  gofmt gofumpt goimports govet ineffassign misspell nilerr prealloc predeclared reassign
  staticcheck tagalign unconvert unparam unused wastedassign whitespace]

Issues before processing: 304, after processing: 0
golangci-lint found no issues
Ran golangci-lint in 174164ms

gencheck — PASS (generated code matches committed code)

go generate ./internal/services/...
go generate ./internal/provider/
==> Comparing generated code to committed code...

No diff — generated code is in sync.

tflint — PASS (provider linting + terraform format check)

==> Checking source code against terraform provider linters...
==> Checking acceptance test terraform blocks are formatted...

depscheck — PASS (go mod vendor clean)

==> Checking source code with go mod vendor...

No diff — vendor directory is in sync.

website-lint — PASS (documentation validated)

==> Checking documentation for .html.markdown extension present
==> Checking documentation spelling...
==> Checking documentation for errors...
==> Checking documentation terraform blocks are formatted...
==> Validating documentation...
Found no errors

Other checks — all PASS

teamcity-test ✅
secrets-check ✅
detect ✅
preview-api-version-linter ✅

Change Log

New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler [New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler, azurerm_durable_task_hub, azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy & New Data Source: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler #32194]
New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_hub [New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler, azurerm_durable_task_hub, azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy & New Data Source: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler #32194]
New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy [New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler, azurerm_durable_task_hub, azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy & New Data Source: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler #32194]
New Data Source: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler [New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler, azurerm_durable_task_hub, azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy & New Data Source: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler #32194]

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 — New service support for Azure Durable Task Framework.

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

No changes to security controls. This PR adds new resources for the Azure Durable Task service and does not modify existing access controls, encryption, or logging.

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

Core Implementation: - Add durabletask service with typed resource implementation - Implement Scheduler, TaskHub, and RetentionPolicy resources - Add resource ID parsing and validation utilities - Include implementation guide for next steps Unit Tests: - Add parse_test.go with resource ID parsing tests for all resource types - Add validate_test.go with validation function tests - Cover edge cases, error scenarios, and Azure-specific patterns - Follow external test package convention (durabletask_test) - Use testify assertions for clear test failures - Test resource ID generation and case-insensitivity Files Added: - DURABLE_TASK_IMPLEMENTATION.md - internal/services/durabletask/parse.go - internal/services/durabletask/parse_test.go - internal/services/durabletask/registration.go - internal/services/durabletask/retention_policy_resource.go - internal/services/durabletask/scheduler_resource.go - internal/services/durabletask/task_hub_resource.go - internal/services/durabletask/validate.go - internal/services/durabletask/validate_test.go

The document-validate CI check was failing because the API Providers section in the durable task scheduler data source documentation said "This resource uses" instead of "This data source uses". Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

…e, CustomizeDiff - Fix schema field ordering: Required fields alphabetically before Optional - Update method now uses delta/partial pattern with HasChange checks - Remove sku_name from Update (ForceNew, never updated in-place) - Add CustomizeDiff validating capacity only allowed with Dedicated SKU - Add model struct comments separating Arguments from Attributes - Add test case for Dedicated SKU with capacity Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

- Extract template() helpers in all resource test files - Add complete data source test with Dedicated SKU - Fix data source test variable naming (d -> r) - Add computed field checks (id, ip_allow_list.#, tags.%) - Create separate update() config to avoid ForceNew field changes - Remove comments violating zero-tolerance policy Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

WodansSon

Hey @stemaMSFT — thanks for this PR, I appreciate your work here!

I reviewed the PR and found some issues that need to be addressed.

Status: Changes Requested

Next steps

Address/Reply to the PR comments.
Run the usual checks locally, re-run the tests and attach the results again to the PR.
When done, push the changes and reply here so I can re-check quickly — happy to re-review the updated code/docs.

Thanks again for the work here! 🚀

WodansSon · 2026-04-23T23:01:49Z

+					"retention_period_in_days": {
+						Type:         pluginsdk.TypeInt,
+						Required:     true,
+						ValidateFunc: validation.IntAtLeast(1),


Can we have a better validation function here, what is the upper bound limit here?

added IntBetween(1, 90)

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T05:45:34Z

+	return []sdk.Resource{
+		SchedulerResource{},
+		TaskHubResource{},
+		RetentionPolicyResource{},
+	}


Could we reorder the entries in the Resources() return slice so they are alphabetical as required by the contributing guidelines?

Suggested change

return []sdk.Resource{

SchedulerResource{},

TaskHubResource{},

RetentionPolicyResource{},

}

return []sdk.Resource{

RetentionPolicyResource{},

SchedulerResource{},

TaskHubResource{},

}

Reference: guide-breaking-changes

Updated — the Resources() return slice is now alphabetically ordered: RetentionPolicyResource, SchedulerResource,
TaskHubResource.

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T05:55:30Z

+			metadata.Logger.Infof("Updating retention policy on %s", schedulerId.ID())
+
+			policies := make([]retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails, 0)
+			for _, item := range model.RetentionPolicy {
+				policy := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails{
+					RetentionPeriodInDays: item.RetentionPeriodInDays,
+				}
+
+				if item.OrchestrationState != "" {
+					state := retentionpolicies.PurgeableOrchestrationState(item.OrchestrationState)
+					policy.OrchestrationState = &state
+				}
+
+				policies = append(policies, policy)
+			}
+
+			properties := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyUpdate{
+				Properties: &retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyProperties{
+					RetentionPolicies: &policies,
+				},
+			}
+
+			if err := client.UpdateThenPoll(ctx, schedulerId, properties); err != nil {
+				return fmt.Errorf("updating retention policy on %s: %+v", schedulerId.ID(), err)
+			}
+
+			return nil


Can we add a change check for the updatable field(s) before performing the update? For example, short-circuit when the retention_policy hasn't changed to avoid unnecessary API calls:

Suggested change

metadata.Logger.Infof("Updating retention policy on %s", schedulerId.ID())

policies := make([]retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails, 0)

for _, item := range model.RetentionPolicy {

policy := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails{

RetentionPeriodInDays: item.RetentionPeriodInDays,

}

if item.OrchestrationState != "" {

state := retentionpolicies.PurgeableOrchestrationState(item.OrchestrationState)

policy.OrchestrationState = &state

}

policies = append(policies, policy)

}

properties := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyUpdate{

Properties: &retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyProperties{

RetentionPolicies: &policies,

},

}

if err := client.UpdateThenPoll(ctx, schedulerId, properties); err != nil {

return fmt.Errorf("updating retention policy on %s: %+v", schedulerId.ID(), err)

}

return nil

metadata.Logger.Infof("Updating retention policy on %s", schedulerId.ID())

if !metadata.ResourceData.HasChanges("retention_policy") {

metadata.Logger.Infof("No changes detected for retention_policy on %s", schedulerId.ID())

return nil

}

policies := make([]retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails, 0)

for _, item := range model.RetentionPolicy {

policy := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyDetails{

RetentionPeriodInDays: item.RetentionPeriodInDays,

}

if item.OrchestrationState != "" {

state := retentionpolicies.PurgeableOrchestrationState(item.OrchestrationState)

policy.OrchestrationState = &state

}

policies = append(policies, policy)

}

properties := retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyUpdate{

Properties: &retentionpolicies.RetentionPolicyProperties{

RetentionPolicies: &policies,

},

}

if err := client.UpdateThenPoll(ctx, schedulerId, properties); err != nil {

return fmt.Errorf("updating retention policy on %s: %+v", schedulerId.ID(), err)

}

return nil

This follows the guidance in best-practices.md to ensure Update only performs work for changed fields (using d.HasChanges or the equivalent on the metadata object).

Reference: best-practices

Added — the update function now short-circuits with metadata.ResourceData.HasChanges("retention_policy") to avoid unnecessary API calls when the retention policy hasn't changed.

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T06:00:27Z

+			Check: acceptance.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("id").Exists(),
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("sku_name").HasValue("Consumption"),
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("location").Exists(),
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("endpoint").Exists(),
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("ip_allow_list.#").Exists(),
+				check.That(data.ResourceName).Key("tags.%").HasValue("0"),
+			),


This depends on the answers to my earlier comments. I would avoid asserting redundancy_state here unless we first confirm that the field should remain exposed in the schema, is something the provider should surface to end users, and is reliably populated for the basic scheduler scenario. Likewise, I would only assert capacity here if we can confirm the API always returns it for the basic consumption configuration; otherwise the complete test seems like the better place to cover it.

Resolved — redundancy_state has been removed from both the resource and data source schemas entirely, so it's no longer asserted in tests.

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T06:14:33Z

+* `sku_name` - (Required) The SKU of the Durable Task Scheduler. Possible values include `Consumption` and `Dedicated`. Changing this forces a new resource to be created.
+
+* `ip_allow_list` - (Required) A list of IP addresses or CIDR ranges that are allowed to access the Durable Task Scheduler.


Required argument ordering, required arguments after location must be alphabetically sorted.

Suggested change

* `sku_name` - (Required) The SKU of the Durable Task Scheduler. Possible values include `Consumption` and `Dedicated`. Changing this forces a new resource to be created.

* `ip_allow_list` - (Required) A list of IP addresses or CIDR ranges that are allowed to access the Durable Task Scheduler.

* `ip_allow_list` - (Required) A list of IP addresses or CIDR ranges that are allowed to access the Durable Task Scheduler.

* `sku_name` - (Required) The SKU of the Durable Task Scheduler. Possible values include `Consumption` and `Dedicated`. Changing this forces a new resource to be created.

Reference: reference-documentation-standards

Updated to the canonical phrasing: "Gets information about an existing Durable Task Scheduler."

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T07:22:43Z

+			Type:         pluginsdk.TypeString,
+			Required:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,
+			ValidateFunc: ValidateSchedulerName,


Can we move the validate code and tests into their own validate sub-folder/package to follow the providers resource validation pattern.

Suggested change

ValidateFunc: ValidateSchedulerName,

ValidateFunc: validate.SchedulerName,

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T07:37:51Z

+			parsedId, err := schedulers.ParseSchedulerID(model.SchedulerId)
+			if err != nil {
+				return fmt.Errorf("parsing scheduler ID: %+v", err)
+			}
+
+			schedulerId := retentionpolicies.NewSchedulerID(parsedId.SubscriptionId, parsedId.ResourceGroupName, parsedId.SchedulerName)
+			id := NewRetentionPolicyID(parsedId.SubscriptionId, parsedId.ResourceGroupName, parsedId.SchedulerName)


Can you explain this to me? I do not understand yet why this resource needs a custom RetentionPolicyID / ParseRetentionPolicyID when the SDK already provides scheduler ID helpers. Is the intention that the Terraform state/import ID for this resource is the full singleton child path ending in /retentionPolicies/default, rather than the parent scheduler ID? If so, could you add a short comment explaining that design choice?

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T07:45:13Z

+			Type:         pluginsdk.TypeString,
+			Required:     true,
+			ForceNew:     true,
+			ValidateFunc: ValidateTaskHubName,


Can we move the validate code and tests into their own validate sub-folder/package to follow the providers resource validation pattern.

Suggested change

ValidateFunc: ValidateTaskHubName,

ValidateFunc: validate.TaskHubName,

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T07:51:59Z

+			if !rawCapacity.IsNull() {
+				skuName := metadata.ResourceDiff.Get("sku_name").(string)
+				if skuName != string(schedulers.SchedulerSkuNameDedicated) {
+					return fmt.Errorf("`capacity` can only be configured when `sku_name` is set to `Dedicated`")


This is a static error message and does not require the fmt.Errorf formatting functionality, can we update this?

Suggested change

return fmt.Errorf("`capacity` can only be configured when `sku_name` is set to `Dedicated`")

return errors.New("`capacity` can only be configured when `sku_name` is set to `Dedicated`")

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T08:07:27Z

+// Copyright IBM Corp. 2014, 2025
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0
+
+package durabletask_test


I noticed that these tests do not have a negative test for the CustomizeDiff validation where it checks for capacity + sku_name = Consumption. The guard is implemented in the resource, but the current acceptance tests only cover the happy-path configurations and contains no ExpectError tests for this condition. Can we add that test case here?

WodansSon

@stemaMSFT, I have another question about the RedundancyState field...

WodansSon · 2026-04-24T09:05:37Z

+	Tags              map[string]string `tfschema:"tags"`
+
+	Endpoint        string `tfschema:"endpoint"`
+	RedundancyState string `tfschema:"redundancy_state"`


redundancy_state is a service-reported computed field, not a configurable argument. Do we want to expose this in the public schema at all? If it is not user-actionable or needed for parity with established provider patterns, I would prefer to remove it from both the resource and data source schemas.

- Move validate functions to validate/ subfolder - Add consumptionWithCapacity test helper for CustomizeDiff validation - Add parse_test.go for scheduler/task hub ID parsing - Use SDK enum for SKU, errors.New, IntBetween(1,90) - Add HasChanges guard, alphabetical registration - Fix doc formatting across all 4 markdown files - Remove redundancy_state from scheduler resource Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

stemaMSFT and others added 15 commits April 16, 2026 15:06

upgrade sdk

e77acc1

following contributor guidelines added docs and testing. tests pass

4728bb7

fixing website test failing

0f8a50c

renamed files per guidelines

9cc8735

fixing doc errors

812b391

fix make generate issue

e114fdd

added forcenew to sku

24f0cf4

fix copyright headers - no code changes made

feb5fc1

fixed static analysis test fails

d2dd8dd

add data source/test for durable task scheduler. fixed docs.

6f41cc8

Remove unrelated managed redis changes from branch

ef8c492

resync and push with doc fixes

f6a8894

go mod tidy && go mod vendor after rebase

6bd2218

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

stemaMSFT requested review from a team, WodansSon and magodo as code owners April 16, 2026 23:37

github-actions Bot added documentation dependencies service/redis size/XL labels Apr 16, 2026

stemaMSFT changed the title ~~Feature/durable task service v2~~ New Resource: azurerm_durable_task_scheduler, azurerm_durable_task_hub, `azurerm_durable_task_retention_policy Apr 16, 2026

stemaMSFT and others added 2 commits April 16, 2026 16:52

revert unrelated managedredis changes

36ea7cd

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions Bot added the waiting-response label Apr 17, 2026

stemaMSFT marked this pull request as draft April 17, 2026 00:16

stemaMSFT and others added 2 commits April 16, 2026 17:21

style: remove unnecessary comments and redundant test checks per review

6eb4255

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label Apr 17, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-response label Apr 17, 2026

style: fix gofmt formatting in scheduler resource

4e8c68f

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label Apr 17, 2026

github-actions Bot added the ai-assisted label Apr 17, 2026

stemaMSFT marked this pull request as ready for review April 23, 2026 21:44

WodansSon requested changes Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot assigned WodansSon Apr 24, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-response label Apr 24, 2026

WodansSon requested changes Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot added waiting-response and removed waiting-response labels Apr 24, 2026

fix: gofmt alignment on sku_name field in scheduler resource

cc2ce17

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-response label Apr 24, 2026

		* `sku_name` - (Required) The SKU of the Durable Task Scheduler. Possible values include `Consumption` and `Dedicated`. Changing this forces a new resource to be created.

		* `ip_allow_list` - (Required) A list of IP addresses or CIDR ranges that are allowed to access the Durable Task Scheduler.

	ValidateFunc: ValidateSchedulerName,
	ValidateFunc: validate.SchedulerName,

	ValidateFunc: ValidateTaskHubName,
	ValidateFunc: validate.TaskHubName,

	return fmt.Errorf("`capacity` can only be configured when `sku_name` is set to `Dedicated`")
	return errors.New("`capacity` can only be configured when `sku_name` is set to `Dedicated`")

Conversation

stemaMSFT commented Apr 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Community Note

Description

PR Checklist

New Resource / Data Source

Testing

CI Results (commit 4e8c68f)

Change Log

Related Issue(s)

AI Assistance Disclosure

Rollback Plan

Changes to Security Controls

Uh oh!

WodansSon 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!

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

WodansSon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

stemaMSFT commented Apr 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

CI Results (commit `4e8c68f`)

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

WodansSon Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading