Fix peerdns attribute
#110
Merged
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
The way we setup `peerdns` isn't correct. We don't want to require both that the `proto` be `"dhcp"` and `"dhcpv6"`. That doesn't even make sense. And the fact that we can say that makes even less sense. In order to show the failure, we add a failing test. We'll fix this shortly.
We have to implement this missing validator to disjoin multiple other validators. Hopefully, that will go away soon.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 way we setup
peerdnsisn't correct. We don't want to require boththat the
protobe"dhcp"and"dhcpv6". That doesn't even makesense. And the fact that we can say that makes even less sense.
In order to show the failure, we add a failing test. We then implement a
fix by adding a validator that disjoins multiple other validators. The
test is effectively what we want in reality, so it passing here should
give good confidence that we can do what we want.
It's unfortunate that we have to write this validator. Hopefully, it's
an oversight and not intentional. We don't want to maintain this
indefinitely. See
hashicorp/terraform-plugin-framework-validators#122
for the upstream issue.