Added additional option for the provider to fix the issue of printing the generated string in logs.

[dpmerron-ltd]

This PR should hopefully address Issue #17 by adding an additional type 'password' which hides the output of the ID. Possibly a better solution than PR #18 as it won't break any existing terraform code that is referencing the random_string.id..?

This would be a good fix for us, and there is quite a lot of chat on the internet about random_string exposing the string.

Let me know thoughts?

[dpmerron-ltd]

Acceptance test output:

$ make testacc TEST=./random TESTARGS='-run=TestAccResource'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./random -v -run=TestAccResource -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccResourceID
--- PASS: TestAccResourceID (0.03s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourceIntegerBasic
=== RUN   TestAccResourceIntegerUpdate
=== RUN   TestAccResourceIntegerSeedless_to_seeded
=== RUN   TestAccResourceIntegerSeeded_to_seedless
=== RUN   TestAccResourcePassword
--- PASS: TestAccResourcePassword (0.04s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourcePet_basic
--- PASS: TestAccResourcePet_basic (0.02s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourcePet_length
--- PASS: TestAccResourcePet_length (0.02s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourcePet_prefix
--- PASS: TestAccResourcePet_prefix (0.02s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourcePet_separator
--- PASS: TestAccResourcePet_separator (0.02s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourceShuffle
--- PASS: TestAccResourceShuffle (0.03s)
=== RUN   TestAccResourceString
--- PASS: TestAccResourceString (0.04s)
--- PASS: TestAccResourceIntegerBasic (0.04s)
--- PASS: TestAccResourceIntegerSeedless_to_seeded (0.06s)
--- PASS: TestAccResourceIntegerSeeded_to_seedless (0.06s)
--- PASS: TestAccResourceIntegerUpdate (0.06s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-random/random	0.309s```

[dpmerron-ltd]

This PR should hopefully address Issue #17 by adding an additional type 'password' which hides the output of the ID. Possibly a better solution than PR #18 as it won't break any existing terraform code that is referencing the random_string.id..?

This would be a good fix for us, and there is quite a lot of chat on the internet about random_string exposing the string.

Let me know thoughts?

[dpmerron-ltd]

FYI, the output will look as follows;

main.tf

resource "random_password" "password" {
  length = 16
  special = true
  override_special = "/@\" "
}

resource "random_string" "string" {
  length = 16
  special = true
  override_special = "/@\" "
}

output "password" {
  value = "${random_password.password.result}"
}

output "string" {
  value = "${random_string.string.result}"
}

Terraform Apply

terraform apply
random_string.string: Refreshing state... (ID: 1VxT04gjjAhIksis)
random_password.password: Refreshing state... (ID: none)

Apply complete! Resources: 0 added, 0 changed, 0 destroyed.

Outputs:

password = EaI3Jdar3X4bqePG
string = 1VxT04gjjAhIksis

[Centre-for-DevOps]

looks ok

[dpmerron-ltd]

@apparentlymart thoughts?

[dpmerron-ltd]

What have I got to do to get a review on this @phinze @apparentlymart @jefferai @jbardin

[jbardin]

hio @danmerron-sig,

Sorry about the delay here. This provider is maintained by the core team, and we have been quite distracted by the large chunk of work going on for 0.12.

I added reviewers directly to this PR to help prevent it from getting lost in the shuffle, and we can take a look at it shortly.

[mildwonkey]

Hi @danmerron-sig,

Do you think it would be beneficial to refactor CreateString to call the CreatePassword function then set the id, instead of maintaining mostly duplicate functions? I haven't done a line-by-line comparison but they appear to be the same.

(I should clarify that this is a genuine question; I am not as familiar with providers as I could be)

[dpmerron-ltd]

@mildwonkey You could be right - however I think the problem is making sure that we don't create a breaking change to get this merged. There was another PR that solved this in a much more elegant way however it would most likely break a lot of user code!

[mildwonkey]

Hi @dpmerron-ltd!

Thank you again for the work you've done here. I am going to close this PR in favor of #18; the next release of the random provider (which I am planning to do in the next few days) will be released as a breaking change.

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.