fix optional rotation state #436
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
nyobe
force-pushed
the
claire/fix-optional-rotation-state
branch
from
f743a92 to
550d5b3
Compare
nyobe
added
the
impact/no-changelog-required
seanyeh
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2025
nyobe
force-pushed
the
claire/fix-optional-rotation-state
branch
from
56f9e1e to
ff9873c
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
rotation state was intended to be optional, so that it could be left off a new
fn::rotateif not bootstrapping initial values, but this doesn't actually work currently.leaving state off does parse, but it ends up evaluating to an unknown value (since it's a missingExpr) which causes the evaluator to bail out.
so this tries to fix that by treating a missing state key as null, and relaxing the rotator schema to always allow state to be null.
but now that I've done this, I am having second thoughts about the whole exercise... maybe thestatekey should just be unconditionally required like theinputskey is, and the provider's schema can decide whether it wants to allow empty state objects or not? then a user will always need to provide at leaststate: {}, but maybe that's fine, since state is a fundamental part of this type of provider.