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

terraform: when promoting non-CBD to CBD, mark the config as such #10455

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2016

Conversation

mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

@mitchellh mitchellh commented Dec 1, 2016

Fixes #10439

This fix is backported to legacy graphs, too.

When a CBD resource depends on a non-CBD resource, the non-CBD resource
is auto-promoted to CBD. This was done in
cf3a259. This PR makes it so that we
also set the config CBD to true. This causes the proper runtime
execution behavior to occur where we depose state and so on.

So in addition to simple graph edge tricks we also treat the non-CBD
resources as CBD resources.

As part of this process, I realized that the new graph doesn't support
this at all since there was no context test covering it! I added a
context test. This test also reproduced the error message in #10439
withou the config setting logic, so it shows it fixes that as well.

Fixes #10439

When a CBD resource depends on a non-CBD resource, the non-CBD resource
is auto-promoted to CBD. This was done in
cf3a259. This PR makes it so that we
also set the config CBD to true. This causes the proper runtime
execution behavior to occur where we depose state and so on.

So in addition to simple graph edge tricks we also treat the non-CBD
resources as CBD resources.
This brings the change for the  new graph. See #10455
@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Split the commits so that we can cherry pick back to 0.7.

@mitchellh mitchellh merged commit 08a5630 into master Dec 2, 2016
@mitchellh mitchellh deleted the b-non-cbd-promote branch December 2, 2016 14:51
gusmat pushed a commit to gusmat/terraform that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2016
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 19, 2020

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 ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 19, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Error applying plan
2 participants