-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.2k
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
tech-debt/waf_xss_match_set: update test configuration params, disappears methods, and enumerated vals #14962
Conversation
…date enumerated vals
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, just one note for consideration 🚀
Output from acceptance testing:
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafRegionalXssMatchSet_noTuples (22.19s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_disappears (26.10s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafRegionalXssMatchSet_basic (26.89s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafRegionalXssMatchSet_disappears (28.46s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_noTuples (28.76s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafRegionalXssMatchSet_changeTuples (39.56s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafRegionalXssMatchSet_changeNameForceNew (43.08s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_basic (44.87s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_changeTuples (48.84s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_changeNameForceNew (67.30s)
@@ -197,47 +197,6 @@ func TestAccAWSWafXssMatchSet_noTuples(t *testing.T) { | |||
}) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func testAccCheckAWSWafXssMatchSetDisappears(v *waf.XssMatchSet) resource.TestCheckFunc { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
😍
aws/structure.go
Outdated
if fm.Type != nil { | ||
m["type"] = *fm.Type | ||
} | ||
m["data"] = aws.StringValue(fm.Data) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just noting here that sometimes the nil
checking is desirable to prevent unexpected difference output (null
versus ""
differences between configuration block updates that show as adding and removing the "same" block in Terraform plan output). I'm not sure if that is the case here, but usually the nil
checking is more deterministic in behavior and what we will likely be doing in the future with code generation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ooo that's a good point, i'll move this back as it was 👍
c21a580
to
7ed2b1d
Compare
Reverted to nil check method in 7ed2b1d Output of acceptance tests:
|
This has been released in version 3.5.0 of the Terraform AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template for triage. Thanks! |
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. Thanks! |
Community Note
Relates #14957
Relates #14601
Release note for CHANGELOG:
Output from acceptance testing: