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

block_fastly_service_package: unnecessary source_code_hash conflict #909

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

noseglid
Copy link
Contributor

@noseglid noseglid commented Dec 19, 2024

This removes the configuration that source_code_hash conflicts with
content. Regardless of how bytes are provided for the package, it
stands to reason it should be possible to also provide the files hash (as
computed by fastly compute hash-files) so the provider can correctly
detect drift.

Fixes #908

This removes the configuration that `source_code_hash` conflicts with
`content`. Regardless of how bytes are provided for the package, it
stands to reason it should be possible to also provide the files hash (as
computed by `fastly compute hash-files`) so the provider can correctly
detect drift.
@Integralist
Copy link
Collaborator

@kpfleming

re: the following comment in the linked issue...

I'm not aware of why this ConflictsWith is there.

...I had a look back at the original PR #661 and I'm also not sure why I added the ConflictsWith coupling between source_code_hash and content. I'm guessing it was just a case of presuming that if someone was providing content, then the hash would be calculated for them. But it looks like we neglected to validate changes from outside of Terraform at the time of that PR, so it would seem like this might be OK to remove here.

Have a look back over the original PR and let me know your thoughts.

I'll leave this PR in your hands, but I wanted to at least comment on this PR as I was responsible for adding the original modifications.

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants