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

Add for_each to Reserved Root Attribute Name Validation #704

Closed
bflad opened this issue Mar 28, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #707
Closed

Add for_each to Reserved Root Attribute Name Validation #704

bflad opened this issue Mar 28, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #707
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@bflad
Copy link
Contributor

bflad commented Mar 28, 2023

Module version

v1.2.0

Use-cases

The schema validation for reserved root attribute names includes the following:

  • connection
  • count
  • depends_on
  • lifecycle
  • provider
  • provisioner

However, it is missing for_each.

Proposal

Add for_each to the reserved root attribute name validation.

References

@bflad bflad added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 28, 2023
@bflad bflad self-assigned this Mar 28, 2023
@bflad bflad added this to the v1.3.0 milestone Mar 28, 2023
bflad added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 29, 2023
…event AttributeTypes/ElementType field panics

Reference: #574
Reference: #699
Reference: #704
Reference: #705

The goal of this change is to enable easier schema validation within the framework logic. This is achieved by implementing new internal interfaces that implement shared logic across all schema types, then introduce methods on attribute types which currently implement type-specific validation logic.

The new `ValidateImplementation()` methods on attribute types, while technically exported, cannot be implemented externally due to their usage of internal types. This follows the existing implementation of the framework where attribute types already cannot be extended due to the `Equal(fwschema.Attribute)` method requirement. Therefore these new `ValidateImplementation()` methods do not need to worry about compatibility promises and can be modified or removed in the future.

This change also includes some breadcrumbs for other schema validation requests.
bflad added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2023
…event AttributeTypes/ElementType field panics (#706)

Reference: #574
Reference: #699
Reference: #704
Reference: #705

The goal of this change is to enable easier schema validation within the framework logic. This is achieved by implementing new internal interfaces that implement shared logic across all schema types, then introduce methods on attribute types which currently implement type-specific validation logic.

The new `ValidateImplementation()` methods on attribute types, while technically exported, cannot be implemented externally due to their usage of internal types. This follows the existing implementation of the framework where attribute types already cannot be extended due to the `Equal(fwschema.Attribute)` method requirement. Therefore these new `ValidateImplementation()` methods do not need to worry about compatibility promises and can be modified or removed in the future.

This change also includes some breadcrumbs for other schema validation requests.
bflad added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2023
… name

Reference: #704

Similar to the other reserved resource attribute name checks, in the unlikely event provider developers need a method to opt out of the safety check, a feature request can be created.
bflad added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2023
… name (#707)

Reference: #704

Similar to the other reserved resource attribute name checks, in the unlikely event provider developers need a method to opt out of the safety check, a feature request can be created.
@github-actions
Copy link

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 30, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
1 participant