Remove auth0_client.custom_login_page_preview

[kpurdon]

Proposed Changes

• Removes a legacy, information-only field custom_login_page_preview.

Fixes #360

Acceptance Test Output

kpurdon@syndio: ~/.../kpurdon/terraform-provider-auth0 make testacc TESTS=TestAccClient
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
?   	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0	[no test files]
=== RUN   TestAccClientGrant
--- PASS: TestAccClientGrant (23.79s)
=== RUN   TestAccClient
--- PASS: TestAccClient (2.65s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientZeroValueCheck
--- PASS: TestAccClientZeroValueCheck (5.78s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientRotateSecret
--- PASS: TestAccClientRotateSecret (4.26s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientInitiateLoginUri
--- PASS: TestAccClientInitiateLoginUri (0.03s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientJwtScopes
--- PASS: TestAccClientJwtScopes (3.88s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientMobile
--- PASS: TestAccClientMobile (10.19s)
=== RUN   TestAccClientMobileValidationError
--- PASS: TestAccClientMobileValidationError (0.02s)
PASS
coverage: 20.7% of statements
ok  	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0/auth0	51.349s	coverage: 20.7% of statements
?   	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0/auth0/internal/debug	[no test files]
testing: warning: no tests to run
PASS
coverage: 0.0% of statements
ok  	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0/auth0/internal/random	0.564s	coverage: 0.0% of statements [no tests to run]
testing: warning: no tests to run
PASS
coverage: 0.0% of statements
ok  	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0/auth0/internal/validation	0.818s	coverage: 0.0% of statements [no tests to run]
?   	github.com/alexkappa/terraform-provider-auth0/version	[no test files]

Community Note

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" comments, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

[kpurdon]

@yvovandoorn @alexkappa this is ready for review, thanks!

[yvovandoorn]

This looks good @kpurdon. Good call on removing it as I can see this could only cause problems.

[mars64]

Breaking the provider by removing this field seems less than ideal. I'd have preferred a deprecation warning here.

[yvovandoorn]

Breaking the provider by removing this field seems less than ideal. I'd have preferred a deprecation warning here.

Thats fair, I'll update the CHANGELOG to be more explicit about removing this field.

[mars64]

Thats fair, I'll update the CHANGELOG to be more explicit about removing this field.

Thanks for the consideration!

Credit where due: I found what I needed in the existing changelog, it's just that it's called out as a BUG FIX, not a BREAKING CHANGE so I'd initially glossed over it. That's my bad, just getting used to the style of this project is all :)

I was thinking something more like using the terraform provider deprecation best practice: https://www.terraform.io/docs/extend/best-practices/deprecations.html

To be clear, I'm glad this field is removed 🎉 Thanks to all involved.

[kpurdon]

@yvovandoorn interestingly now I'm basically seeing the same thing w/ custom_login_page. Even after removing and disabling the page it's a permanent response requiring a state ignore. Should we apply the same (or improved) treatment to that field?