In order to fix the failing test in the preceding commit when optional
params are changed from their default "computed" values.
These weren't working well with `HttpHealthCheck.Patch()` because it was
attempting to set all unspecified params to Go's type defaults (eg. 0 for
int64) which the API rejected.
Changing the call to `HttpHealthCheck.Update()` seemed to fix this but it
still didn't allow you to reset a param back to it's default by no longer
specifying it.
Settings defaults like this, which match the Terraform docs, seems like the
best all round solution. Includes two additional tests for the acceptance
tests which verify the params are really getting set correctly.
By first creating a very simple resource that mostly uses the default
values and then changing the two thresholds from their computed defaults.
This currently fails with the following error and will be fixed in a
subsequent commit:
--- FAIL: TestAccComputeHttpHealthCheck_update (5.58s)
testing.go:131: Step 1 error: Error applying: 1 error(s) occurred:
* 1 error(s) occurred:
* 1 error(s) occurred:
* Error patching HttpHealthCheck: googleapi: Error 400: Invalid value for field 'resource.port': '0'. Must be greater than or equal to 1
More details:
Reason: invalid, Message: Invalid value for field 'resource.port': '0'. Must be greater than or equal to 1
Reason: invalid, Message: Invalid value for field 'resource.checkIntervalSec': '0'. Must be greater than or equal to 1
Reason: invalid, Message: Invalid value for field 'resource.timeoutSec': '0'. Must be greater than or equal to 1
Mixture of hard and soft tabs, which isn't picked up by `go fmt` because
it's inside a string. Standardise on hard-tabs since that is what's used
in the rest of the code.
It doesn't need to be a List of Maps, it can just be a Map.
We're also safe to remove a previous workaround I stuck in there.
The config parsing is equivalent between a list of maps and a plain map,
so we just need a state migration to make this backwards compatible.
fixes#1508
In a DESTROY/CREATE scenario, the plan diff will be run against the
state of the old instance, while the apply diff will be run against an
empty state (because the state is cleared when the destroy node does its
thing.)
For complex attributes, this can result in keys that seem to disappear
between the two diffs, when in reality everything is working just fine.
Same() needs to take into account this scenario by analyzing NewRemoved
and treating as "Same" a diff that does indeed have that key removed.
If a given resource does not define an `Update` function, then all of
its attributes must be specified as `ForceNew`, lest Applys fail with
"doesn't support update" like #1367.
This is something we can detect automatically, so this adds a check for
it when we validate provider implementations.
Mitchell Hashimoto