-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Deprecation of Built-In TestCheckFunc Implementations for Checking Pairs of Values #282
Comments
I spent some time this morning checking out GitHub source available usage of Valid: Test assertions that seem meaningful to verify and otherwise difficult or not possible (e.g. validating API via data source picks up expected resource indirectly)
Extraneous via computed configuration: Test assertions using computed attribute, but due to configuration attribute value reference. While extraneous, these seem to be implemented for full(er) coverage. Extraneous and errant: Test assertions using invalid attribute paths (e.g. not sets) and against configuration attribute value references. While extraneous, these seem to be implemented for full(er) coverage. |
The proposed |
Background
As part of the implementation of state checks which leverage tfjson.State, built-in state checks, which are implementations of TestCheckFunc (e.g., TestCheckResourceAttr) are being deprecated in favour of state checks that are based on interrogating tfjson.State.
All of the implementations of TestCheckFunc which handle checking individual values, will have an equivalent state check implemented with the new state checks that leverage tfjson.State. However, the built-in implementations of TestCheckFunc which deal with pairs of values will be deprecated without replacement.
Purpose of this Issue
The purpose of this issue is to provide a placeholder for signalling use-cases and interest in having built-in state checks which operate on tfjson.State that replicate the behaviour of
TestCheckResourceAttrPair
and/orTestCheckTypeSetElemAttrPair
.References
ExpectKnownValue
,ExpectKnownOutputValue
, andExpectKnownOutputValueAtPath
plan and state checks #276The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: