fix handling of server-deletes resulting in 404s #156
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
|
Oh wow... somehow I didn't realize this PR was out there for the past six months! I'll test this right now and merge shortly assuming no issues! |
|
Thanks @NicoK for the patch. I'm super embarrassed it sat so long! |
|
This has been tagged and released as v1.17.0 - thanks again! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
d61a16e initially established the behaviour that server-side deletes or a REST resource are handled gracefully be the plugin (by re-creating the resource instead of failing in
terraform plan) but this behavour got broken with ef7f07a.The test case that was verifying this also got changed in c43d333 so this PR reverts that change as well to establish the original behaviour.
Ultimately, the error-matching via strings does not seem the most stable choice for the future (as shown by ef7f07a), but refactoring this is outside of the scope of this PR.