Skip to content
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

core: store deeply nested modules in a consistent order in the state #3573

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2015

Conversation

phinze
Copy link
Contributor

@phinze phinze commented Oct 20, 2015

We were only comparing the last element of the module, which meant that
deeply nested modules with the same name but different ancestry had an
undefined sort order, which could cause inconsistencies in state
storage and potentially break remote state MD5 checksumming.

We were only comparing the last element of the module, which meant that
deeply nested modules with the same name but different ancestry had an
undefined sort order, which could cause inconsistencies in state
storage and potentially break remote state MD5 checksumming.
@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM!

phinze added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2015
…nsistently

core: store deeply nested modules in a consistent order in the state
@phinze phinze merged commit 5b1c038 into master Oct 20, 2015
@phinze phinze deleted the b-state-store-module-order-consistently branch October 22, 2015 20:23
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 30, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 30, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants