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

feat: add AddReference method to References #415

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

Conversation

yordis
Copy link
Contributor

@yordis yordis commented Jun 2, 2024

Description of your changes

@haarchri was helping at crossplane-contrib/provider-upjet-digitalocean#41 (thank you), and during the code review, I noticed a oversee where he replaced the existing r.References as follow:

diff --git a/config/provider.go b/config/provider.go
index 83eada3..8e69d59 100644
--- a/config/provider.go
+++ b/config/provider.go
@@ -294,13 +294,9 @@ func GetProvider() *ujconfig.Provider {
 			Type:          referenceType(pc, “project”, “v1alpha1", “Project”),
 			TerraformName: “digitalocean_project”,
 		}
-
-		r.References = map[string]ujconfig.Reference{
-			“forwarding_rule.certificate_name”: {
-				TerraformName: “digitalocean_certificate”,
-			},
+		r.References[“forwarding_rule.certificate_name”] = ujconfig.Reference{
+			TerraformName: “digitalocean_certificate”,
 		}
-
 	})
 	pc.AddResourceConfigurator(“digitalocean_domain”, func(r *ujconfig.Resource) {
 		r.ShortGroup = “dns”

I am glad that I saw the diff, but honestly, this is a straightforward thing to miss when they are so much code-generated files noise, or people tend to ignore those.

As @haarchri explained, "That's why I prefer this, for example, https://github.com/crossplane-contrib/provider-upjet-aws/blob/main/config/elbv2/config.go#L13," which is a really common scenario.

I never considered using the existing style. I didn't think much about it. He didn’t try to break things. Still, we ran into the issue. Since we are talking about "style" here, it is really difficult to be objective and define who is more proper.

So, the fix here is to expose an SDK API that avoids such a mistake.

I am not proposing adding getters and setters everywhere either, just reacting to the situation and figuring out how to mitigate the issues in the future; as I usually say, "let the code teach you what to do, not the other way around."

I have:

  • Read and followed Upjet's contribution process.
  • Run make reviewable to ensure this PR is ready for review.
  • Added backport release-x.y labels to auto-backport this PR if necessary.

How has this code been tested

  • Unit Testing

@yordis yordis force-pushed the feat-improve-sdk-reference branch 2 times, most recently from 30b0582 to 3da3f28 Compare June 2, 2024 18:47
@yordis yordis marked this pull request as ready for review June 2, 2024 18:49
@yordis
Copy link
Contributor Author

yordis commented Jun 2, 2024

A few things from this,

  1. Should all documentation and code-generated code be updated to this?
  2. Should References be a private field instead of exposing it? You can still assign r.References. Ideally, Provider Authors shouldn't care about replacing the entire r.References, and in that case, we can add r.ReplaceReferences(references), but I am not sure when this would be necessary.

@yordis yordis force-pushed the feat-improve-sdk-reference branch from 3da3f28 to 67ef84e Compare June 2, 2024 19:35
// in another object.
func (r References) AddReference(fieldPath string, ref Reference) error {
if _, ok := r[fieldPath]; ok {
return ErrReferenceAlreadyExists
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't love returning an error in this situation. My instinct is that the action of setting a reference should be idempotent; as you've implemented it all times it's invoked but the first will fail with an error.

Maybe it's ok because it would happen at generation time, although I don't know if we could guarantee that.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no strong opinions; either way it is fine by me

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @mbbush, what would be the resolution here? I am not sure if you requested some changes or not

@yordis yordis requested a review from mbbush June 27, 2024 18:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants