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

Remove unnecessary StateFunc in compute_target_https_proxy #1027

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018

Conversation

rosbo
Copy link
Contributor

@rosbo rosbo commented Jan 30, 2018

Removes extra complexity to make our life easier with MM

ValidateFunc: validateRegexp(sslCertificateRegex),
StateFunc: toCanonicalSslCertificate,
Type: schema.TypeString,
ValidateFunc: validateRegexp(sslCertificateRegex),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we get rid of this ValidateFunc now since the DiffSuppress will allow setting the resource name?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good idea. Done.

@rosbo rosbo merged commit 559f280 into hashicorp:master Jan 31, 2018
@rosbo rosbo deleted the https-proxy-statefunc-rm branch January 31, 2018 00:07
chrisst pushed a commit to chrisst/terraform-provider-google that referenced this pull request Nov 9, 2018
…#1027)

* Remove unnecessary StateFunc in https proxy

* Support name only certificates

* Remove test for the removed validate func
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 29, 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 feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 29, 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