-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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
Bridge should handle SchemaConfigModeAttr block attributes #1762
Comments
Really hard to make progress here without sufficient tests. Very large room for regressions around this. This would be easier with #1766 but it'd still need some work as TF JSON syntax might have limitations related to this issue: https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/language/attr-as-blocks#in-json-syntax |
Can you try to specify a test a long the lines of This should be doable but needs a little bit of thinking. We can maybe check that ConfigureFunc receives the exact same data under Pulumi and TF over a range of auto-generated schemes with SchemaConfigModeAttr variability, and that it emits similar warnings - though comparing emitted warnings can get a bit gnarly and need some massaging. |
I'd like to pair early next week to have a look together. This is going to be interesting. |
What happened?
During the work on #1725 I stumbled upon a panic in pulumi-azure: #1725 (comment)
TF SDK providers seem to have a special backwards-compatibility mode which allows specific resources to opt-in to a behaviour where they can distinguish between nil and empty collections - https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/plugin/sdkv2/guides/terraform-0.12-compatibility#computed-resource-attributes
This is not handled anywhere in the bridge and I suspect is the root cause for pulumi/pulumi-azure#1881 and the panic in #1725 (comment)
Example
Output of
pulumi about
tested with azure 5.69 which uses 3.77 of the bridge
Additional context
No response
Contributing
Vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction.
To contribute a fix for this issue, leave a comment (and link to your pull request, if you've opened one already).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: