Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 5, 2023. It is now read-only.

References to partial state in extend should be removed #1152

Closed
paultyng opened this issue Feb 26, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

References to partial state in extend should be removed #1152

paultyng opened this issue Feb 26, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
inaccuracy Something's wrong on the internet plugin Docs for extending terraform and writing providers

Comments

@paultyng
Copy link
Contributor

See https://www.terraform.io/docs/extend/writing-custom-providers.html#error-handling-amp-partial-state

Creating this from hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk#312

@nfagerlund nfagerlund added plugin Docs for extending terraform and writing providers inaccuracy Something's wrong on the internet labels Mar 31, 2020
@bcatubig
Copy link

Hey @paultyng

I'm new to writing providers and came across this deprecation.

Is it safe to say that provider authors should not worry about partial state? Is there a better way to handle partial state in providers? Should partial state not be used at all?

Thanks!

@paultyng
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the easiest approach is to just ignore this functionality. Core doesn't really have a concept of partial state, this was just a provider/SDK side thing. This is commonly confused with incremental state writing, but its not that its just an SDK behavior.

That being said, what is your use case where you may need some sort of partial state functionality?

@laurapacilio
Copy link
Contributor

Closing this since it's been a while and it looks like work related to this issue has since been done. Please reopen if needed - thank you!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
inaccuracy Something's wrong on the internet plugin Docs for extending terraform and writing providers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants