secretmanager: fixed secret_data/secret_data_wo constraint allowing neither to be set

[malhotrasagar2212]

google_secret_manager_secret_version accepted a config with neither secret_data nor secret_data_wo set. terraform planned it successfully, created the parent secret , then failed at apply with an API error naming a field that doesn't exist in the provider:
Error: Error creating SecretVersion: googleapi: Error 400: Field [payload] is required.

Fixes hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#24269
Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

See Write release notes for guidance.

secretmanager: fixed an issue where `google_secret_manager_secret_version` would fail at apply time with `Field [payload]` is required if neither `secret_data` or `secret_data_wo` was set. The provider  now returns a validation error at plan time.

[modular-magician]

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes for commit e2f8f34:

Diff report

Your PR generated the following diffs in downstream repositories:

Repository	Diff Link	Changes
google provider	View Diff	2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
google-beta provider	View Diff	2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
terraform-google-conversion	View Diff	2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Breaking Change(s) Detected

The following breaking change(s) were detected within your pull request.

• Field secret_data_wo within resource google_secret_manager_secret_version was added to exactly one of - reference
• Field secret_data within resource google_secret_manager_secret_version was added to exactly one of - reference

If you believe this detection to be incorrect please raise the concern with your reviewer.
If you intend to make this change you will need to wait for a major release window.
An override-breaking-change label can be added to allow merging.

Test report

Analytics

Total Tests	Passed	Skipped	Affected
47	42	4	1

Affected Service Packages

• secretmanager

Learn how VCR tests work

---

Step 1: Replaying Mode

Action taken

Found 1 affected test(s) by replaying old test recordings. Starting RECORDING based on the most recent commit.

Click here to see the affected tests

• TestAccSecretManagerSecretVersion_neitherSecretDataSet

View the replaying VCR build log

---

Step 2: Recording Mode

Recording Mode	Replaying Rerun	Test Name
✅ Log	❌ Error · Log	TestAccSecretManagerSecretVersion_neitherSecretDataSet

Caution

Issues requiring attention before PR completion

🔴 Replaying Rerun Failed: Some tests failed due to non-determinism when VCR replayed the response. See the table above for details.

Please address these issues to complete your PR. If you believe these detections are incorrect or unrelated to your change, please raise the concern with your reviewer.

View the recording VCR build log or the debug logs folder for detailed results.

@malhotrasagar2212, @melinath VCR tests complete for e2f8f34!

[melinath]

LGTM - just to double check, were you still able to reproduce the error from the API?

attn @BBBmau FYI since this will impact #18309

[melinath]

FYI the new test is impacted by hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#15427 & should probably be marked as SkipIfVcr to avoid confusion.

[BBBmau]

@melinath This PR was actually something I had in mind to open after looking further into the PR i had opened. The old PR can be closed as the actual logic that we want to focus on now is in the writeOnlyField logic that adds the write-only and write-only-version fields.

The suggested changes are to resolve the missing required_with which is due to not properly naming secretDataWoVersion, the FEATURE-BRANCH-major-release-8.0.0 will of course resolve this by using the new write_only: true and not write_only_legacy: true

[BBBmau]

Suggested change

	- name: 'SecretDataWoVersion'
	- name: 'secretDataWoVersion'

[BBBmau]

Suggested change

	- 'SecretDataWoVersion'
	- 'payload.0.secretDataWoVersion'

[melinath]

I think this change would be a breaking change that's not allowed in a minor release; the breaking change already in this PR is allowed because the resource can't work otherwise, but I don't think that's true for this one.

[melinath]

This should be deleted for clarity, then re-added in the major release branch.

Suggested change

	required_with:
	- 'SecretDataWoVersion'