Backport of configs: A test for the regression reported in #31081 into v1.2 #31098
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
teamterraform
force-pushed
the
backport/b-module-is-incompatible-with-count-test/gladly-becoming-skink
branch
from
a6a1e94
to
c1c4d05
Compare
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
backport/b-module-is-incompatible-with-count-test/gladly-becoming-skink
branch
from
c1c4d05
to
371472c
Compare
apparentlymart
deleted the
backport/b-module-is-incompatible-with-count-test/gladly-becoming-skink
branch
|
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. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Backport
This PR is auto-generated from #31097 to be assessed for backporting due to the inclusion of the label 1.2-backport.
The below text is copied from the body of the original PR.
#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.