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

Fix "inconsistent conditional result types" error in modules/vpc-sc #2676

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024

Conversation

joelvoss
Copy link
Contributor

This PR fixes the issue described in issue #2675. I've also adapted one of the example based tests so that the incorrect behavior is checked in the future.


Checklist

I applicable, I acknowledge that I have:

  • Read the contributing guide
  • Ran terraform fmt on all modified files
  • Regenerated the relevant README.md files using tools/tfdoc.py
  • Made sure all relevant tests pass

Copy link

google-cla bot commented Nov 11, 2024

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

@ludoo
Copy link
Collaborator

ludoo commented Nov 12, 2024

Thanks, I just wonder why you edit the ingress policy examples but the change to the factory code is for egress. :)

@joelvoss
Copy link
Contributor Author

I thought it would be enough to just customize the ingress part of the example-based test. I can also extend the egress part as well if you like.

The adjustments in the code affect both ingress and egress.

@ludoo
Copy link
Collaborator

ludoo commented Nov 12, 2024

Thanks for clarifying. My preference would be to leave the current examples as is, and add an extra set of YAML/code rules to cover this case. It makes it easier to assess changes.

@joelvoss
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for clarifying. My preference would be to leave the current examples as is, and add an extra set of YAML/code rules to cover this case. It makes it easier to assess changes.

No problem. I have reverted the changes to the current examples and added an extra set of YAML/code rules to cover this case instead.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ludoo ludoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks a lot for this!

@ludoo ludoo enabled auto-merge (squash) November 12, 2024 08:43
@ludoo ludoo merged commit 6c19e96 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Nov 12, 2024
14 checks passed
@joelvoss joelvoss deleted the fix/issue-2675 branch November 12, 2024 17:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants