ResourceIdentity: Switch to using plan instead of applied state for asserting identity data #502
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
austinvalle
commented
May 13, 2025
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are just to satisfy the linter since they are no longer used 👍🏻
austinvalle
force-pushed
the
av/remove-import-apply
branch
from
49c30ba to
b9190d4
Compare
ansgarm
approved these changes
May 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The goal of the current assertion for identity imports is to ensure the prior saved identity is the same as the identity after import/refresh (i.e. the planned identity). This PR switches the previous logic from doing an apply, to using the
PlannedValuesof the no-op plan produced by a successful plannable import.Luckily,
PlannedValuesalso happens to be atfjson.StateValues, similar to the(tfjson.State).Values, so there is a small refactor to do the comparison 👍🏻