-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
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
Rename provider #85
Rename provider #85
Conversation
…vider prefix to `cloudfoundry`. Address issue #44.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks @mevansam looks good to me. The failed test may require a merge of #89
For users such as @janosbinder that started to use mevansam/terraform-provider-cf in production, we should document a migration guide:
- TF specs need provider, resources and datasource renames
- TF state file requires
- Provider rename
- Resources rename
I suggest to track this into a distinct issue to merge #85 asap.
layout: "cf" | ||
page_title: "Cloud Foundry: cf_user_provided_service" | ||
layout: "cloudfoundry" | ||
page_title: "Cloud Foundry: cloudfoundry_user_provided_service" | ||
sidebar_current: "docs-cf-resource-user-provided-service" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume the sidebar_current ids are defined in cf.erb and therefore don't need renames
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For backward compatibility would it make sense to register providers under the cf_* name a well as cloudfoundry_*, until @janosbinder has moved over to the new naming convention? Theoretically, it should work but I have not tested it but wanted to validate if this has already been experimented with at Orange.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mevansam I would suggest to keep the provider code simple and compliant to hashicorp guidelines, and rather rely on beta users of mevansam/terraform-provider-cf to upgrade themselves using the procedure @janosbinder kindly contributed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do agree with @gberche-orange this is more complexity for us to maintain than for user to do the changes. In add, we will never remove it to ensure compatibility by doing. I think that the sooner the better here.
@gberche-orange @mevansam I think the necessary steps for migration are: 0, back up the tf files and the terraform.tfstate file
Should be
4, if there are no errors after calling terraform plan, and no changes are planned to be applied then the migration was successful. |
Pull request addressing issues: #44 and #66