provider-resource-review

name	provider-resource-review
description	Code review SOP for Terraform Provider resource changes. Covers delete implementation, code-doc consistency, conditional logic documentation, doc quality, test quality, and common bug patterns. Used standalone or referenced by provider-resource-acceptance.
metadata	{"version":"3.2.0","domain":"terraform-provider","triggers":"code review, resource review, review SOP, review resource changes"}
outputs	{"result":"PASS | FAIL","report":"Markdown review report with ✅/❌/⚠️ per check item"}

Provider Resource Review

Review code, documentation, and tests for Terraform Provider resources. The goal is to find issues and generate a review report, NOT to modify code.

Input Sources

• GitHub PR link → use gh to retrieve change information
• Resource name → locate files in the current Provider codebase
• Current branch → git diff --name-only master..HEAD

Check Items

1. Delete Implementation

Verify the Delete function makes a real API call. If deletion only does d.SetId("") without calling a delete API → ⚠️ warning, request that a delete API be added later.

2. Code-Documentation Consistency

Check each field for consistency between the code Schema definition and documentation:

• Field type (TypeString / TypeInt / TypeBool / TypeList etc.)
• Constraints (Required / Optional / Computed / ForceNew)
• Valid values (ValidateFunc values vs values listed in documentation)

Array field documentation type rule:

For TypeList/TypeSet fields, the documentation label depends on Elem, not the code type:

• Elem: &schema.Resource{...} (Object) → doc MUST say Set
• Elem: &schema.Schema{...} (primitive) → doc MUST say List

Mismatch → ❌ error.

3. Conditional Logic Documentation

If the code contains logic conditional on attribute values, e.g. if attr == "xxx" { yyy }, verify the documentation describes this behavior. Undocumented → ❌ error.

4. Documentation Completeness

• Parameter descriptions must not be vague (e.g. only saying "The xxx of the resource" with no real information)
• Links in the form [xxx](~~198289~~) (bare numeric links) must not appear → critical error
• If an attribute description lost key information compared to the previous version (e.g. "when this value must be provided"), warn and request review

5. Test Case Quality

• Check for hardcoded IDs in tests (hardcoded resource IDs, Account IDs, etc.) → non-compliant, review fails
• Resource names should use var.name, not hardcoded strings

6. Code Bug Patterns

GetOk on boolean/integer fields

GetOk returns ok=false for Go zero values (false, 0), silently dropping user-set values. TypeBool / TypeInt fields must use GetOkExists.

// ❌ Drops false/0
if v, ok := d.GetOk("disabled"); ok { ... }

// ✅
if v, ok := d.GetOkExists("disabled"); ok { ... }

Direct array type assertions

Direct type assertions panic on type mismatch. Use the provider helper instead.

// ❌ Panics
items := v.(*schema.Set)
items := v.([]interface{})

// ✅
items := convertToInterfaceArray(v)

Important Notes

• API parameter names differing from resource attribute names (e.g. request["scheduleTime"] = d.Get("recurrence")) is not necessarily a bug. Flag a warning, but do not judge it as an error.
• This skill's goal is to find issues, not to modify code or documentation.

Acceptance Criteria

After completing all checks, perform a second-pass review: re-verify every ❌ and ⚠️ in the report for accuracy. Once confirmed, output the final conclusion.

Report Format

## Review Result: ✅ All Checks Passed / ❌ Issues Found

### Check Item Details

✅ Check 1: Delete Implementation
Details: Delete function calls DeleteInstance API
Evidence: alicloud/resource_alicloud_xxx.go:230

❌ Check 2: Conditional Logic Documentation
Details: Code branches on instance_type value, but documentation does not describe this
Evidence: alicloud/resource_alicloud_xxx.go:156
Suggestion: Document the special behavior when instance_type is "ecs.n1.small"

⚠️ Check 3: Parameter Description Clarity
Details: vpc_id description is too vague
Evidence: website/docs/r/xxx.html.markdown:45
Suggestion: Add specific usage details

### Issue Summary

**Critical Issues (must fix):**
1. Description — Location: file:line — Suggestion: fix approach

**Improvement Suggestions (optional):**
1. Description — Location: file:line