[DOCS]: how to grant security admin role with role_team

[KyriosGN0]

Describe the need

when using the latest version of the provider, we get the deprecation warning for the github_organization_security_manager resource, which states that we should move to the github_organization_role_team resource, when using github enterprise cloud, i don't have anyway to get the role id of the security manager role, which means i can't migrate

SDK Version

No response

API Version

No response

Relevant log output

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[github-actions]

👋 Hi! Thank you for this contribution! Just to let you know, our GitHub SDK team does a round of issue and PR reviews twice a week, every Monday and Friday! We have a process in place for prioritizing and responding to your input. Because you are a part of this community please feel free to comment, add to, or pick up any issues/PRs that are labeled with Status: Up for grabs. You & others like you are the reason all of this works! So thank you & happy coding! 🚀

[stevehipwell]

@KyriosGN0 can't you use the github_organization_roles data source? Also I'm not sure if this is documented anywhere, but AFAIK the role ID for the security manager is always 138.

[KyriosGN0]

@stevehipwell the problem is that it returns a list of roles, so i basically need to use a magic number (index in the list) to get the security_manager role.

[stevehipwell]

@KyriosGN0 as I already said, the ID is magic (that's how the old deprecated API worked). But as long as you know the name you can get the ID by iteration instead.

security_manager_id = one([for x in data.github_organization_roles.default : x.role_id if x.name == "Security Manager"][*])

[KyriosGN0]

@KyriosGN0 as I already said, the ID is magic (that's how the old deprecated API worked). But as long as you know the name you can get the ID by iteration instead.

security_manager_id = one([for x in data.github_organization_roles.default : x.role_id if x.name == "Security Manager"][*])

imho this is bad UX, would it be possible to keep those resources ? (as they nicely abstract logic end users have no why to figure out)
alternatively I think that adding this code to the docs is also acceptable experience for people upgrading to newer version

[stevehipwell]

@KyriosGN0 Keping the resources would add additional complexity and require additonal maintenance; given that this pattern doesn't scale I can't see a benefit for doing this. We'd be verry happy to accept a PR to improve the docs and may be able to provide a pattern to help with lookups in the future.

[KyriosGN0]

@KyriosGN0 Keping the resources would add additional complexity and require additonal maintenance; given that this pattern doesn't scale I can't see a benefit for doing this. We'd be verry happy to accept a PR to improve the docs and may be able to provide a pattern to help with lookups in the future.

No probs, i will submit a docs PR