helper/schema: allow ConflictsWith and Computed Optional fields #9825
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@jtopjian Wasn't this something you were wishing could use for latest Openstack TF tweaks? |
|
@fatmcgav yep! Thanks for pinging me on this. |
jbardin
approved these changes
Nov 4, 2016
|
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
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #7869
This allows ConflictsWith to work with computed, optional fields. Unit tests show this works great, although it was guarded against in
InternalValidate. I removed that validation but would like to ask @radeksimko why that was originally there.I've also clarified the docs for this field that it only validates conflicts within the configuration. This isn't new behavior, just highlighted now in the docs.