Add support for d/vcf_certificate_authority

[insidepacket]

Code of Conduct

• I have read and agree to the project's Code of Conduct.
• Vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue initial description to help the maintainers prioritize.
• Do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant information or questions.
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment.

Description

Add data resource for certificate_authority that can be used in the certificate renewal and other related resources.

Use Case(s)

When we replace a certificate for a domain resource (VCENTER, SDDC_MANAGER) with another certificate, we need to add the certificate_authority resource to the TF template. This makes the certificate_authority resource editable, which is unnecessary for certificate renewal. It also (1) adds unnecessary complexity by including the CA configuration in a certificate renewal TF template, (2) introduces a risk of incorrect CA configuration changes due to human error, and (3) prevents customers from using terraform destroy for the cert renewal TF template as it will remove the CA configuration.

Potential Configuration

data vcf_certificate_authority "example" {
    name = var.ca_name
    type = "microsoft"
}

References

No response

[tenthirtyam]

Assigned to Ryan Johnson, VMware by Broadcom.

[tenthirtyam]

Reassigned to David Zhang, VMware by Broadcom.

[github-actions]

'Marking this issue as stale due to inactivity. This helps us focus on the active issues. If this issue receives no comments in the next 30 days it will automatically be closed.

If this issue was automatically closed and you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context.
Thank you!'

[github-actions]

'Marking this issue as stale due to inactivity. This helps us focus on the active issues. If this issue receives no comments in the next 30 days it will automatically be closed.

If this issue was automatically closed and you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context.
Thank you!'