Refactor `google_artifact_registry_repository_iam` to require name(selfLink) instead of repo,location and project

[upodroid]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment. If the issue is assigned to the "modular-magician" user, it is either in the process of being autogenerated, or is planned to be autogenerated soon. If the issue is assigned to a user, that user is claiming responsibility for the issue. If the issue is assigned to "hashibot", a community member has claimed the issue already.

Affected Resource(s)

• google_artifact_registry_repository_iam

Description

Refactor the required fields for google_artifact_registry_repository_iam_* to require name(a new field) instead of repo, location and project as all these fields are available in the name field from the API or id field.

The resource is in beta so this needs to be done before it goes GA. API is still beta but the product is GA.

  + resource "google_artifact_registry_repository_iam_binding" "artifact_registry_iam_authoritative" {
      + etag       = (known after apply)
      + id         = (known after apply)
      + location   = "europe"
      + members    = [
          + "domain:REDACTED",
        ]
      + project    = "REDACTED"
      + repository = "prod"
      + role       = "roles/artifactregistry.writer"
    }

b/272799216

[Subserial]

The resource was promoted to GA with https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-google/pull/12063. I believe this is no longer possible as it would be a breaking change.

[rileykarson]

Note: The beta provider's a stable surface too, so this issue as written was a breaking change the resource moved to GA as well.

I think it'd be reasonable to support a name field as an alternative to the split fields, but removing the split ones is unlikely to be worth it. I'm not sure why we put this in Goals over Backlog when we triaged it in the first place.