configs: A test for the regression reported in #31081 #31097
Conversation
apparentlymart
added
the
1.2-backport
|
This seems to be failing in CI in a way it didn't fail on my own system, so I'm going to debug that now. |
|
Ahh... I removed the empty |
5417975 addressed a regression in the logic for catching when the newer module meta-arguments are used in conjunction with the legacy practice of including provider configurations inside modules, where the check started incorrectly catching situations where the legacy nested provider configuration was in the same module as the child call using one of those meta-arguments. This is a regression test to catch if a similar bug arises in the future. Since it's testing validation rules that apply to an entire configuration tree, it ended up in a rather idiosyncratic location under the "configload" package, rather than directly in "configs". The "configs" package only knows how to load one module at a time, so it's harder to write a test like this in that context. Due to it being further removed from the code it is testing, I included a test for the correct error too in order to increase the chance that we'll learn if future changes in the "configs" package invalidate this regression test. I've verified that this new test fails without the change made in the earlier commit.
apparentlymart
force-pushed
the
b-module-is-incompatible-with-count-test
branch
from
99948bd
to
d1473d5
Compare
|
Reminder for the merging maintainer: if this is a user-visible change, please update the changelog on the appropriate release branch. |
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
#31091 addressed a regression in the logic for catching when the newer module meta-arguments are used in conjunction with the legacy practice of including provider configurations inside modules, where the check started incorrectly catching situations where the legacy nested provider configuration was in the same module as the child call using one of those meta-arguments.
This is a regression test to catch if a similar bug arises in the future.
Since it's testing validation rules that apply to an entire configuration tree, it ended up in a rather idiosyncratic location under the
configloadpackage, rather than directly inconfigs. Theconfigspackage only knows how to load one module at a time, so it's harder to write a test like this in that context. Due to it being further removed from the code it is testing, I included a test for the correct error too in order to increase the chance that we'll learn if future changes in the "configs" package invalidate this regression test.I've verified that this new test fails without the change made in the earlier commit.