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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
resourcemanager/resourceids
: adding aMatch
function #234resourcemanager/resourceids
: adding aMatch
function #234Changes from 1 commit
e23d14b
b22bd69
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Despite the comment I could still see this creeping into places where it shouldn't in the provider. Would it make sense and/or be possible for this to be accompanied by a check in the provider to flag new additions of this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By this, do you mean a check in the Provider to ensure that we're not doing
.ID() ==
? If so, yes - that can be added at the same time as fixing the 6 instances aboveThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually mean a check in the Provider to ensure we're not setting
features.TreatUserSpecifiedSegmentsAsCaseInsensitive = true
unless it's been explicitly added to a list of exceptions, like we do with these checksThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, makes sense - we probably want both checks actually.
It's worth noting that since this feature-flag is for the behaviour as a whole (i.e. across the entire Provider) rather than being for individual Resource ID types - we'd only set this one-time rather than in multiple places anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For info: I've intentionally not included the validation changes in hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm#25873 since this wants to be done in a follow up PR - will send that in the morning: