Fixed handling of zero values in retention attributes.

[jtaylor-cs]

Fixes the treatment of a zero value for the attributes retention_count_limit and retention_day_limit, in which the zero value was overridden by the default value of the attribute.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes the handling of zero values in the Terraform retention rule attributes, retention_count_limit and retention_day_limit. A zero value set of these attributes resulted in the value being overwritten with its default value:

retention_count_limit = 100
retention_day_limit = 28

Expectations:

Following the upgrade of the provider, a user may notice that a Terraform Plan/Apply action reflects changes to these limit attribute values. This occurs because the zero value is now recognized and is correcting the incorrectly set default value.

Key Changes:

• Modified the update logic to always send retention_count_limit, retention_days_limit, and retention_size_limit values to the API, even when zero.
• Updated test case to validate that zero values for retention limits persist correctly.
• Updated documentation for retention_count_limit to include default value of 100.
• Refined documentation for retention_size_limit attribute to better reflect the maximum 20 GB limit and equivalent byte value.

[BartoszBlizniak]

Hey @jtaylor-cs -

• Just to double-check, will these changes have any impact on the current users who use retention rules via Terraform? You should be able to perform a quick check by; running the code once on the latest version available (0.0.66) and then switching to your build to see if there are any differences which may come up as a result - if this will start spitting out differences for existing users, we should document this somewhere.
• Question (optional); is there any API changes which we can suggest to our team that would make this experience better? Whilst this will fix stuff in short-term, do you feel like this could be solved by our APIs allowing a zero value instead?

[jtaylor-cs]

Hey @jtaylor-cs -

• Just to double-check, will these changes have any impact on the current users who use retention rules via Terraform? You should be able to perform a quick check by; running the code once on the latest version available (0.0.66) and then switching to your build to see if there are any differences which may come up as a result - if this will start spitting out differences for existing users, we should document this somewhere.
• Question (optional); is there any API changes which we can suggest to our team that would make this experience better? Whilst this will fix stuff in short-term, do you feel like this could be solved by our APIs allowing a zero value instead?

@BartoszBlizniak, I followed your instructions to run the latest version and switch to the local build to see what differences occur. I edited the PR Overview to highlight the expectations. Please let me know if I need to expand the statement or place it in another documentation section.

I consider API changes, and I don't think there are any at this time. The retention rule code recognizes a zero value as something that is skipped in the logic, so these updates actually reinforce that functionality, ensuring the user's desired value is set and persisted, thereby leading to the expected retention rule evaluation.

[BartoszBlizniak]

lgtm